Wrestling Observer MOTY Collection 1980 - 2005

[gordi]

I concede that your general argument is correct, John, but that is a long way from arguing that there shouldn't be a point to pro wrestling, which is where all this started.

[Loss]

I only think it's fair to call something a resthold if it serves no purpose outside of resting and adversely affects the match. Otherwise, the term seems derogatory. There is value in taking a match up and bringing it back down to build to the next big flurry of action.

 

Flair grabbed headlocks and armbars? I could *swear* you're always harping on him being go-go-go.

 

[gordi]

I only think it's fair to call something a resthold if it serves no purpose outside of resting and adversely affects the match. Otherwise, the term seems derogatory. There is value in taking a match up and bringing it back down to build to the next big flurry of action.

 

 

 

 

Exactly! There is often a point to it. People who write reviews of pro wrestling that complain every time a hold is slapped on are missing that point. (Reviewers like that exist, too. Mostly, they are people who started out reading Scott Keith, and took his definition of 'work rate' too far, I'd assume).

[jdw]

I only think it's fair to call something a resthold if it serves no purpose outside of resting and adversely affects the match. Otherwise, the term seems derogatory. There is value in taking a match up and bringing it back down to build to the next big flurry of action.

I tend to think there are times were a decently worked "resthold" doesn't adversely affect a match. In other words, where the purporse of the hold is to *rest* rather than to simply "fill space in the match".

 

In turn, I also think that there are times when a decently worked "resthold" *does* adversley affect the match.

 

The 08/22/87 Tito vs. Bass match has a really strong opening 13 minutes. When they go to restholds:

 

One can give it to Bass for trying to work it as well with his use of the ropes. And Tito does actually "reverse" the hold rather than needing the ref to catch Bass's nonsense for a break. And Tito does sell it well when getting out of it.

Even though the primary purpose of the hold is to rest since Bass is pretty gassed, there are elements here and there in the work of the resthold that *are* trying to get reactions from the crowd.

 

But on the other hand:

 

Except at this point, Bass remembers that they're going 20, he's a bit tired, and they don't have another seven minutes of stuff to work at this pace.

 

So he slips on a chinlock.

 

Then he slips on the head scissors so that he can take a breather laying down on the mat while Tito sells it.

 

It's really a match that was building with the finish pretty much insight over the next hill, and it grinds to a halt.

It really does grind the match to a halt, losing a big chunk of the goodwill the fans invested in the really strong 13 minutes of work they did.

 

There was a reason for the restholds - primarily to rest, secondarily to try to eat up some of the clock left.

 

Even through they were resting, they tried at times to play to the crowd.

 

Overall, it didn't work well in contrast to what they did earlier in the match.

 

I strongly suspect Bass *knew* that the resthold would flatten out the crowd heat, and I think it's why he put a little extra effort in trying to work during them. But I also think by that point in the match that he didn't fell like he had any other choice but to resthold - he was gassed, and he simply didn't have enough to eat up a larger chunk of time with Tito In Peril without going to a resthold.

 

 

Flair grabbed headlocks and armbars? I could *swear* you're always harping on him being go-go-go.

 

 

Ric preferred to go-go-go. If he was going long, grabbing a hold was needed. He usually worked hold for dogshit in the 80s.

 

John

[World's Worst Man]

In certain styles, you could say a lot of the early stuff is done to build the match rather than get an immediate reaction. It's still working toward the goal of popping the crowd though. But I'll also say that if a reviewer doesn't enjoy what the wrestlers are doing to gain that reaction, there's nothing anyone can say or do to change that opinion. Hogan's nonsense got a reaction from the crowd, but I thought it sucked. Misawa and Kobashi no-selling each other's offense pops the crowd, and I think that sucks. Not that I'm defending the OP or anything, but I just don't like the "if it got a reaction, you have to think it's good" mindset.

[jdw]

Exactly! There is often a point to it. People who write reviews of pro wrestling that complain every time a hold is slapped on are missing that point. (Reviewers like that exist, too. Mostly, they are people who started out reading Scott Keith, and took his definition of 'work rate' too far, I'd assume).

 

It's more than just "reviewers". There are plenty of fans who think the same thing. Holds = boring, unless it's a holds based style such as UWF. That thinking *is not* an online invention. You can see it in old WONs as well.

 

There's a reason the Flair was so popular among hardcore fans in the 80s and 90s even before the net and that his matches were "great" and "action packed". It's because Ric kept things moving along, more than most any heavyweight in the US at the time. He did it in a theatrical style. Easy connection.

 

 

John

[Loss]

 

I only think it's fair to call something a resthold if it serves no purpose outside of resting and adversely affects the match. Otherwise, the term seems derogatory. There is value in taking a match up and bringing it back down to build to the next big flurry of action.

I tend to think there are times were a decently worked "resthold" doesn't adversely affect a match. In other words, where the purporse of the hold is to *rest* rather than to simply "fill space in the match".

If working a hold serves a purpose in a match, it's not a resthold, even if it allows the wrestlers a chance to rest. That's really my point. It's a derogatory term used to described wrestlers who don't have enough wind to wrestle a match without taking a break. There are plenty of cases of that happening, but if it serves a purpose in the match, I wouldn't label it a resthold.

[anarchistxx]

No you don't. You like getting praised for your opinions, but you apparently can't handle being criticized.

That isn't the case at all. The only time in this thread I've resorted to insults is when you called my reviews 'du,b'. It was you in fact, who labelled my reviews for not being 'smart'. I don't mind constructive criticism, which you eventually gave, and I have no problem being criticized. It's just when people opt for the one liner without giving any real criticisms.

 

These aren't really reviews I've been posting anyway, in this particular thread, they're just thoughts on matches.

 

I am under the impression that you just want people to read your reviews and enjoy getting your take on matches.

Again, not true. I've had many long discussions about matches I've reviewed, where people disagree with me.

 

I think the problem is that you have really poor reasons for holding those opinions,

They may be poor reasons in your eyes, but in my eyes they may be things I hold really important when watching a match.

 

Single out a 'poor reason' and I'll explain it further.

 

reasons that clearly show that you do not understand what is supposed to be happening in the match in question.

 

And if I don't understand what's supposed to be happening, they aren't doing it that well, for me. You may undersand what's happening, and that'll make the match great for you. I see no instance of me 'not understanding what was happening' anyway. I've seen all the Misawa/Kawada matches before 06/03, I knew the storyline going in. I just felt the match had a lot more floors than most people claim. Misawa/Jumbo is clearly better, Hansen/Kobashi is better, Kobashi/Misawa is better, there's a whole host of beter singles matches out there. That isn't because I don't understand the match, I just don't like it as much as some.

 

I think that it takes a whole lot of ego to really believe that all that matters is your take on a match.

I don't think that at all. I like reading other people's thoughts on matches, and take them into consideration. But at the end of the day, if I'm writing my thoughts on a match, it has to be my take on it, and I'm not going to lie because other people like it a lot.

 

Very often, there is much more to a great match than what first meets the eye.

Oh, definately. But considering I've seen Misawa/Kawada about 4 times and still hold the opinion means I should have picked up by now whatever stuff was under the surface. I got the story behind it, I got what they tried to do, it just didn't evoke any sort of emotional response from me at all.

 

I take the context of my matches into account, but in this case, it didn't affect my opinion.

 

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.

I listen to what others have to say, but at the end of the day, I usually think I'm right; I would, otherwise I wouldn't hold that opinion.

 

I've had my opinions change on many matches as a result of people's write ups.

 

I'm not going to get into the X and Y and rest hold argument because it doesn't interest me. I like discussing particular matches.

 

Maybe my negative thoughts are a result of not enjoying wrestling much anymore. I watch it, and it provides sufficient entertainment for half an hour while I'm having a quick lunch, but I never sit down and have 2 or 3 hour sessions anymore. There are still matches I really dig though, and that keeps me watching. Case of my normal life being busy I think. I'll be having a 1 year absence in June anyway, as I'm taking a gap year and won't get chance to watch any wrestling, so hopefully when I get back I'll be more into it again. Or I might just have gone off it altogether.

[jdw]

If working a hold serves a purpose in a match, it's not a resthold, even if it allows the wrestlers a chance to rest. That's really my point. It's a derogatory term used to described wrestlers who don't have enough wind to wrestle a match without taking a break. There are plenty of cases of that happening, but if it serves a purpose in the match, I wouldn't label it a resthold.

 

I don't get to worked up on whether it's a deragatory term or not.

 

Is it a hold?

 

Yes.

 

Are they using it to rest?

 

Yes.

 

It's a resthold.

 

Even the best use them if they're going long.

 

Whether they're using the resthold effectively or not is a different question.

 

An example?

 

Kawada hits a running high kick into the corner that crushed Misawa's oribtal bones and knocks him goofy. Misawa is goofy for a decent amount of time early in the match. Kawada knows it, and Misawa's not so out of it that he doesn't grasp that he's "not in condition" to continue working their normal opening gambits. Kawada applies a number of restholds, far more than one would typically see out of the two in their 30 minute matches, to let Misawa collect his head. He picks things up here and there to not totally put the crowd to sleep, but by and large he takes a fair amount of time to let Misawa rest and collect his head.

 

They are restholds, plain and simple. It does served a purpose in a match - to let a really fucked up wrestler try to get it together since they really couldn't take it home.

 

In all honesty, the quality of the work from a "what they actually did" in those holds wasn't good at all. It didn't do a great amount to engage the fans. It didn't really further a storyline in the match. The only thing compelling about it is to the *home viewer* who knows the score and is trying to figure out just how fucked up Misawa is.

 

But in terms of the "purpose", it was pretty decent work from Kawada - he had a cripple in the ring. He wasn't scheduled to win. All Japan doesn't do DCOR or DDQ to allow them to call an audible "finish" to get Misawa out of the ring. It's a 30 freaking minute, and the accident happens a minute into the match. Most opponents would fucking panic, yet Kawada kept a cool head.

 

So it's one of those good/not-good sections, depending on how one wants to judge it.

 

But they are still restholds.

 

There are good and bad restholds, regardless of what people in the past may think of the term. It's similar to a whole slew of people on the net (and in the business) hating the *term* "workrate" because they don't really understand what it means. Of course they aren't helped by the fact that people tend to bastardize the term, just as "hardcore wrestling" got bastardized by ECW.

 

I wouldn't get to worked up over the term. I'd focus more on whether it's a decent resthold, or if it was just pissing away time, lost the crowd, or derailed the match.

 

 

John

[gordi]

 

 

 

Maybe my negative thoughts are a result of not enjoying wrestling much anymore. I watch it, and it provides sufficient entertainment for half an hour while I'm having a quick lunch, but I never sit down and have 2 or 3 hour sessions anymore. There are still matches I really dig though, and that keeps me watching. Case of my normal life being busy I think. I'll be having a 1 year absence in June anyway, as I'm taking a gap year and won't get chance to watch any wrestling, so hopefully when I get back I'll be more into it again. Or I might just have gone off it altogether.

 

My guess is that you'll come back to wrestling refreshed and end up enjoying it more than ever. That's generally what I find happens to me when I take a break. I got a little burned out on pro wrestling and pro wrestling discussion earlier this year after throwing myself into the "Greatest Wrestler Of All Time" project over on Smark's Choice... then I had the DVDVR Other Japan 1980s stuff to go through, and all of the new stuff I got turned on to during the SC discussion, plus the ROH stuff I'd picked up... it started to feel like watching wrestling was an obligation more than a hobby. I took about six weeks off of watching wrestling. That turned out to be the right thing to do.

 

Nice come-backs to my criticism, by the way. Maybe I've been reading you incorrectly, as I really felt that you were driven mainly by ego.

[anarchistxx]

.. it started to feel like watching wrestling was an obligation more than a hobby.

Yeah, I've been feeling like that for a while. But I bought a load of DVD's, and kind of feel obligated to watch them, to justify what now seems a pretty extortionate outlay (£100 70 Discs). At the time I was really into watching wrestling, but I have different priorities with my money now.

 

Maybe I've been reading you incorrectly, as I really felt that you were driven mainly by ego.

Yeah, sorry if I gave that impression.

 

I am arrogant sometimes, and feel I'm right most of the time, but I do try and read others opinions and take them on board.

 

It's always more entertaining to disagree and discuss though, and I'm sure if my comments hadn't been ridiculous in the eyes of many, this thread wouldn't have been as popular.

[gordi]

In certain styles, you could say a lot of the early stuff is done to build the match rather than get an immediate reaction. It's still working toward the goal of popping the crowd though. But I'll also say that if a reviewer doesn't enjoy what the wrestlers are doing to gain that reaction, there's nothing anyone can say or do to change that opinion. Hogan's nonsense got a reaction from the crowd, but I thought it sucked. Misawa and Kobashi no-selling each other's offense pops the crowd, and I think that sucks. Not that I'm defending the OP or anything, but I just don't like the "if it got a reaction, you have to think it's good" mindset.

 

 

I can see where you're coming from. From my point of view, though, the worst kind of mindset by far is the one that can only appreciate one kind of wrestling. I find it fully wrong-headed if someone who only enjoys highspots hates on anything and everything that isn't packed full of hugely exciting offense. It also bugs me someone who can only get into slow building old school face vs. heel matches where the heel beats the baby down, only to lose the advantage due to hubris, and then the good guy get his revenge and the reviewer in question feels the need to bitch every time a match doesn't follow that formula. There are people online who love 1990s AJPW King's Road Style so very much that they judge every match in terms of how it compares to that style. I can't get behind that, either. There are so many different kinds of great wrestling. The reviewers that I enjoy reading are almost always the ones who can see what's great about a bunch of different styles. The same is true, in my way of looking at things, of music, movie, or video game critics. To hell with film geeks who only give love to obscure foreign films with complex plots and to hell with mouth-breathing dolts who hate anything that doesn't define its conflict with a car chase. They are both wrong. Similarly, to hell with wrestling geeks who can only praise something if most of the other geeks haven't seen it yet, and to hell with people who only watch what's on free TV but think that they are pro wrestling experts. Both are idiots.

 

 

 

Exactly! There is often a point to it. People who write reviews of pro wrestling that complain every time a hold is slapped on are missing that point. (Reviewers like that exist, too. Mostly, they are people who started out reading Scott Keith, and took his definition of 'work rate' too far, I'd assume).

 

It's more than just "reviewers". There are plenty of fans who think the same thing. Holds = boring, unless it's a holds based style such as UWF. That thinking *is not* an online invention. You can see it in old WONs as well.

 

There's a reason the Flair was so popular among hardcore fans in the 80s and 90s even before the net and that his matches were "great" and "action packed". It's because Ric kept things moving along, more than most any heavyweight in the US at the time. He did it in a theatrical style. Easy connection.

 

 

John

 

 

I know that this will mark me as a wrestling fogey, but I think that's the worst kind of "only one style of wrestling is good wrestling" bias: the bias that it's only good if the action is non-stop. It's one of the reasons that I was damn happy with a trend that became pretty clear in 2006: what seemed to be a decline in the overall popularity of TNA combined with a rise in the overall popularity of ROH with Bryan Danielson deliberately working an old school World Champion gimmick. I love an occasional fast-moving spot-filled sprint, but I HATE the short attention span idea that every match needs to be structured that way.

[World's Worst Man]

 

In certain styles, you could say a lot of the early stuff is done to build the match rather than get an immediate reaction. It's still working toward the goal of popping the crowd though. But I'll also say that if a reviewer doesn't enjoy what the wrestlers are doing to gain that reaction, there's nothing anyone can say or do to change that opinion. Hogan's nonsense got a reaction from the crowd, but I thought it sucked. Misawa and Kobashi no-selling each other's offense pops the crowd, and I think that sucks. Not that I'm defending the OP or anything, but I just don't like the "if it got a reaction, you have to think it's good" mindset.

 

I can see where you're coming from. From my point of view, though, the worst kind of mindset by far is the one that can only appreciate one kind of wrestling. I find it fully wrong-headed if someone who only enjoys highspots hates on anything and everything that isn't packed full of hugely exciting offense. It also bugs me someone who can only get into slow building old school face vs. heel matches where the heel beats the baby down, only to lose the advantage due to hubris, and then the good guy get his revenge and the reviewer in question feels the need to bitch every time a match doesn't follow that formula. There are people online who love 1990s AJPW King's Road Style so very much that they judge every match in terms of how it compares to that style. I can't get behind that, either. There are so many different kinds of great wrestling. The reviewers that I enjoy reading are almost always the ones who can see what's great about a bunch of different styles. The same is true, in my way of looking at things, of music, movie, or video game critics. To hell with film geeks who only give love to obscure foreign films with complex plots and to hell with mouth-breathing dolts who hate anything that doesn't define its conflict with a car chase. They are both wrong. Similarly, to hell with wrestling geeks who can only praise something if most of the other geeks haven't seen it yet, and to hell with people who only watch what's on free TV but think that they are pro wrestling experts. Both are idiots.

Oh I agree. There are different styles of wrestling, and not all of them are going to have the same characteristics. A brawl isn't going to contain lots of moves, a king's road match isn't going to have a good vs. evil story, etc etc. If someone only digs a certain style, that's fine, as long as they're not going to dismiss matches as being bad just because they aren't in that style. If they have a problem with how the match was done in the context of the wrestling style, that's a different story. I think that all wrestling shares some common traits, but the specifics can change from style to style.

[anarchistxx]

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

[Bix]

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

 

[/b]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

WCW/New Japan Supershow

Taped March 21, 1991 in Tokyo, Japan

Shown April 1991 on PPV (0.6)

[anarchistxx]

Thanks; so have I been watching the wrong match, or have I just got the wrong date?

[Loss]

The point is that it won the award it did because it was on a WCW/New Japan supershow and the buyrate was pretty decent, which means a lot of people saw it and liked it, and remembered it because it was different than the usual WCW style they were accustomed to at the time.

[anarchistxx]

Oh, right, sorry.

 

Bit slow on the uptake today.

[Resident Evil]

The point is that it won the award it did because it was on a WCW/New Japan supershow and the buyrate was pretty decent, which means a lot of people saw it and liked it, and remembered it because it was different than the usual WCW style they were accustomed to at the time.

 

Back in 1991 this was surreal watching this if you were just watching North American wrestling. The new moveset, different style, anticipation as you were watching the happen,atmosphere and the intensity made the match seem 10 times more real than what was usually going on in WCW at the time. 1000 times if you count the WWF.

The already mythical Steiner brothers who were so more amazing than their peers facing off against a team that was seemingly on their own level was mind blowing. This match was one of the biggest eye openers on what wrestling can be that the North American audience has ever seen.

[gordi]

I'm pretty sure that this match was the gateway drug that created the first big surge in puroresu tape trading. As someone (John?) said in a review of the match I remember reading a long way back: A lot of people who had been reading about Japanese stuff in WON finally got the chance to see what the fuss was about. Like wp said, it was a huge eye-opener. I still think it's a hell of a match.

[anarchistxx]

Yeah, it was certainly a lot of fun.

 

Here is probably a case of where knowing the context does help. I may go back and rewatch.

[Bix]

Watching in context almost always helps.

[Resident Evil]

Jim Ross also helps the match with his commentary on it.

[anarchistxx]

Ah, right, well this version had the Jap commentary, so that may have hurt the match a bit.

[Loss]

Ahem, the Japanese commentary.

 

 

I know a lot of people have piled on you in this thread, and I didn't want to do so as well, but "Jap" is typically considered a racist term. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's not how you meant it.