Who Is Better?

[Childs]

The argument that Hansen had to rely on stiffness where Vader did not is, well, strange. Vader's offense was all about stiffness. It was his signature. Sure, he was a good and willing bumper for his size, but when people talk about him, they tend to reference him punching dudes in the face. You referenced the Inoki match. That was all about Vader delivering an unholy beating to a 53-year-old man. I loved it. Don't get me wrong. But there was nothing subtle about it.

 

Conversely, the idea of Hansen as this blind guy getting by on wild haymakers is just wrong. Watch his matches closely. He was almost never out of position. The timing on his important spots (often a lariat from an unusual position) was impeccable. He was actually a pretty terriffic athlete. He was great in slow-build, old school title matches. He was as good as anyone ever in out-of-control brawls. He was just as great as the relentless old gun defending his turf against the young lions. Look at something like his '93 classic with Kawada. It's stiff sure, but the timing of the spots and the selling are what really elevate it. Do I think Hansen could've done what Vader did in UWF-I? Sure. Vader basically let Takada kick him real hard, sold the damage well, and rallied with stiff punches and power moves.

 

Vader was great not because he adapted his style to different settings but because his basic package (brutal offense, showy bumping and a badass aura) was one that could be built around in a lot of different settings. Really, he did the same stuff against Sting as he did against Takada as he did against Misawa. Nothing wrong with that. It worked. But Vader was Vader.

[Death From Above]

Hansen has much better psychology than Vader.

 

I love both guys. But it's Hansen easily.

 

I'd rather have either to use as the focal point of a company than 99% of the other available options.

[Jingus]

Remember how people were talking about how great Sabu was in 1993/1994 and then just a few years later, some of those very same people started talking about how bad Sabu was?

That's something which always bothers me. All too often, you see the phrase "broken-down" thrown into such statements. Well no shit, he's broken down because he was doing all that crazy shit that you marked out for. Jeff Hardy and other spot wrestlers tend to get the same treatment sometimes as well.

 

The best thing about Bret is that he makes you believe him. He makes you believe that he really is excellent. You can feel it from the way he talks, walks and works. He is a very convincing performer.

That's where my subjective perspective departs from the norm, because I was never convinced. Even as a young kid, I never went through a phase where I thought wrestling was real. So to me, Bret was just another guy bragging about how good he was. And I've never been a fan of babyfaces with egotistical characters, there's few things which annoy me more than a guy who goes around constantly reminding people of how cool he is.

 

But in the end... if you manage to look at it from a perspective other than Bret’s, he really isn’t much of a technical wrestler at all

Which is another thing that bugged me. Sure, the WWF's definition of a "technical wrestler" is a bit different than most places. But still, Bret did a lot of punching. Punching and punching and punching and then some stomping for variety. Listening to the announcers gush about Bret's scientific skills while he kept resorting to fisticuffs, not an ideal situation to make me admire the guy's technique. Same thing with Kurt Angle even at his peak, too.

[stunning_grover]

I see the Rey Misterio Jr. situation more as a Sabu situation. I know they have different styles, but both are workers who were really exciting when they were "discovered" . Remember how people were talking about how great Sabu was in 1993/1994 and then just a few years later, some of those very same people started talking about how bad Sabu was? Sabu is not a great wrestler and he definitely isn't as good as Rey Jr. (that's why we are still talking about Rey Jr. in a positive way and not much about Sabu), but in 1993/1994, Sabu was “new” and exciting. In 1994/1995, Rey Jr. was “new” and exciting... Yeah, Rey Jr. may have improved some aspects of his work, but he also lost the main aspect of his appeal (he is now just another typical WWE worker). By the way, I think Rey Jr. is much more doing the same old thing in WWE than he did in AAA. His matches in WWE are more similar to each other than his matches in AAA. And I don't understand why people are talking about how much he has improved as an all-round worker. Some people are talking like the fact that he isn’t using as many high flying moves as in the past automatically means that he is now a better babyface storyteller in the ring. By the way, Rey Jr. was always a good storyteller, only in the past, he combined it with great high flying (he was never a high spot machine or something, he had good psychology)... now he combines it with typical WWE work. Sure, he has learned many things over the years (but that's to be expected)... still, it's not like he changed into a Ricky Steamboat or something. So, I still don't see what's so special about Rey Jr. being able to work WWE matches. I mean, if KENTA would come to WWE and change his style to WWE style... would you all be talking about how much KENTA has improved then as well? I understand everyone is happy to see a worker like Rey Jr. on current tv shows (he is clearly one of the five best workers in WWE right now)… but in years from now, I think if we will look back on the career of Rey Jr., it will be obvious that his work in AAA was the most crucial and best part of his career. His run in WWE will just be remembered as a nice extension of his career, which deserves some credit, but doesn’t mean it’s better than anything he has ever done.

What are some of these great AAA Rey matches that make him better then than he is now? I can't think of one that was better than Rey/Eddy from Smackdown in June 05. His AAA stuff was good but hasn't really held up well. The feud with Juvi especially hasn't held up. The cage match they had was horrible and very ECW like. In WWE he's able to adapt to different guys like Ziggler, Knox, Hart Dynasty etc. and have good matches with them. It's not like in AAA when he was facing guys that had a similar style(Juvi, Psicosis, Perro Jr., Eddy etc). As for Eddy's work in Los Gringos Locos, it's one of my favorite groups ever but none of those matches were better than his WCW 1997 and WWE 2005 matches. Octagon/Santo vs LGL has been REALLY overrated over time. The match that's on the PWO comp is way better and even that I wouldn't call a great match.

 

Rey Jr. having "good" 5-minute WWE style matches with the current WWE workers isn't really a great thing, in my opinion. But again, I like Rey Jr. and I'm happy he is so successful now, but when I think of Rey Jr.'s best work, I think of his AAA work (and even his ECW and early WCW work).

The feud between Rey Jr. and Juventud Guerrera may not have held up over time, but it was really considered great stuff at the time. Things were a lot different in 1996, it was really a transitional year for pro wresting. I like the cage match, although I fully understand the dislike for it. But I still think their 4/21/1995 match is a great match and doesn't come across as dated.

I think Psicosis vs. Rey Misterio Jr. from 9/22/1995 is probably the best Rey Misterio Jr. match ever.

I vaguely remember the Eddy Guerrero vs. Rey Misterio Jr. matches from 2005, but I don't recall them being special performances on the part of Rey Jr. The first thing I think of when trying to think back of those matches is that it will always amaze me that Eddy was basically a great wrestler for almost his entire career.

Eddy's work with Gringos Locos may not have produced a series of great matches, but most of those matches where not right settings for great matches (for example, a lot of times there were just some brawling type six man tag matches with Eddy and Art Barr teaming with Konnan that were not designed to have a match-of-the-year type match), but that doesn't mean that Eddy's work wasn't great... some of the little things he did really added a lot to the matches. Anyway, I never claimed that those matches were his greatest matches ever, but I just think we shouldn't forget that in 1993/1994, Eddy was a great wrestler who performed as good as he possibly could in matches in Japan and Mexico. The AAA six-man tag matches weren't always the right settings for what we today perceive as great matches (especially when guys like Konnan were involved). The When Worlds Collide match between Eddy/Art vs. Octagon/Hijo del Santo is overrated, that's true (still, it was a historic match)... but that match probably would have been better if the match time wasn't cut down (it was originally supposed to last longer). The Eddy/Art vs. Octagon/Hijo del Santo match from 12/05/1993 is indeed way better than the When Worlds Collide match, but I think it's actually a great match.

 

 

But in the end... if you manage to look at it from a perspective other than Bret’s, he really isn’t much of a technical wrestler at all

Which is another thing that bugged me. Sure, the WWF's definition of a "technical wrestler" is a bit different than most places. But still, Bret did a lot of punching. Punching and punching and punching and then some stomping for variety. Listening to the announcers gush about Bret's scientific skills while he kept resorting to fisticuffs, not an ideal situation to make me admire the guy's technique. Same thing with Kurt Angle even at his peak, too.

 

That's right. They should've called Bret a "thinking man's wrestler" or something like that (that would make a lot more sense). I like Bret, but he is definitely not an impressive technical wrestler. I recently watched the Bret Hart & Owen Hart vs. Rick Steiner & Scott Steiner match from 1994, and it was interesting to see that Owen and the Steiners kind of outclassed Bret.

[Dylan Waco]

Honestly I can't believe anyone could watch modern Rey and sarcastically say he's having "good" matches that run five minutes and that this isn't a "great" thing, while holding up his run in 95-96 as his pinnacle. Don't get me wrong, you can like what you like. I've always thought that the people who don't like modern Rey as much as 96 Rey basically boil down to people who preferred the novelty of a fresh guy doing crazy shit and you've basically admitted as much. And I'm a guy that likes 95-97 Rey an awful lot.

 

But let's be honest - modern Rey isn't working five minute matches that people are calling great. Modern Rey is working ten, fifteen, twenty plus minute matches that people are calling great. I'm not going to speak to the AAA stuff because I've seen a handful of it, but in WCW he wasn't getting near the time on average that he gets now. It's literally not even open for discussion. Hell even in his most highly touted WCW match v. Eddy at HH 97 goes less than fifteen minutes.

 

But nitpicking about time is mostly unimportant. What really gets me is that people really believe Rey hasn't improved his babyface work, particularly as a guy who sells, times comebacks, et. Having watched a lot of 95-96 Rey recently, I really can't see how anyone could say that Rey hasn't drastically improved in that regard or that his performance in the 05 SD match with Eddy isn't a great example of that. 96 Rey could have never had a series of matches like 06 Rey had with Mark Henry. And the fact that he is the most over face act on the roster besides maybe Jeff Hardy is a testament to this. Rey is on the same level of Steamboat and Morton as a babyface worker.

 

The Hansen v. Vader comparison is odd to me too, in that Hansen clearly didn't rely entirely on stiffness and Vader was arguably more reckless than Hansen. That Flair match - which isn't even good really - is a great example of that as Vader took extreme liberties with Flair to the point where Ric was essentially begging him to back off during the match. So far as I can tell that is worse than a blind guy occasionally potato shotting someone.

[tomk]

Yeah this thread has really long lost grip on reality. Rey works long showcase matches. Even something like Rey v Mordecai went longer than most Rockers matches and they were supposedly one of the "best tag teams in history" made up of two guy who were among the most "spectacular" wrestlers of their time.

 

This whole question of guys presented as technical wrestlers stuff is silly. Technical wrestler is a gimmick. Stan hansen is a guy with a pretty big technical moveset who does a lot of good leverage matwork. But no one is gonna call him a technical wrestler because he wasn't presenting himself as such.

 

I haven't been the biggest fan of Jeff HArdy's WWF/E work but want to point out that the Hardys v MNM 07 summerslam match is really really good. It's I think forgotten because of Umaga v Cena but easily one of better WWF tag matches of last thirty years. That whole 07 Hardys tag period (outisde of the the three way ladder mess) where they working less like a stunt team and more like a tag team has some really nice work from Jeff. I like Luger in tags, like Luger/Buff v Goldberg/Sarge, like Luger/Sting v Steiners, like Luger/Giant v Rodman/Hogan but Luger has never contributed as much to tags as Hardy did during that 2007 run.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not going to argue that Luger is a better tag worker than Jeff because he isn't. And 07 Jeff was pretty clearly a very good worker. Hell I saw Hardy work a house show match against Punk a month or so back that was a tremendous effort for a throwaway b-show in front of maybe 6,000 fans. But I don't see any argument for Jeff's peak as a singles guy being better than Luger's 89. And I'm not a big Luger fan.

 

Also that Hardyz v. MNM match was at RR not SS. And it's a great match.

 

There was a recent thread at SmarksChoice asking when the last great WWE tag ever was and people were rattling off shit from the "Golden Age" that makes one wonder if they've bothered to watch any of that shit in years. I'm actually a huge fan of The Rockers and think they were probably one of - if not the best - of those mythologized mid-80's-early 90's WWF tag teams, but MNM almost certainly had more high end matches than them. I mean MNM had a better series with fucking Charlie Haas and Bob Holly than Rockers did with Arn and Tully and I'm a huge fan of Arn, Tully, Jannetty and Rockers era Shawn (which I think was Michaels peak if we are being honest). .

[Jingus]

Rockers era Shawn (which I think was Michaels peak if we are being honest). .

"Being honest"? What the hell does that mean? I think that Shawn's match with Taker this year at Mania was better than any Rockers match that I've ever seen, and with that opinion I'm being honest.

[Dylan Waco]

Rockers era Shawn (which I think was Michaels peak if we are being honest). .

"Being honest"? What the hell does that mean? I think that Shawn's match with Taker this year at Mania was better than any Rockers match that I've ever seen, and with that opinion I'm being honest.

 

It means I'm "being honest."

 

Actually I think your counterpoint (if you want to call it that) is much less clear. Not sure what on Earth Shawn having a great match with Taker at Mania means here. Are you arguing that Shawn's performance v. Taker was better than any Shawn performance during Rockers era? If so are you arguing that Shawn's one performance v. Taker somehow means that Shawn's real peak was the first three months of 09? Literally have no clue what the fuck you mean here.

 

I like Rockers era Shawn a great, great deal. Always have. Not arguing that Rockers era Shawn had better matches than any other era Shawn, but booking advantages that came along later in his career are seemingly obvious enough where they don't merit being pointed out. Do they?

[Jingus]

Actually I think your counterpoint (if you want to call it that) is much less clear. Not sure what on Earth Shawn having a great match with Taker at Mania means here. Are you arguing that Shawn's performance v. Taker was better than any Shawn performance during Rockers era? If so are you arguing that Shawn's one performance v. Taker somehow means that Shawn's real peak was the first three months of 09? Literally have no clue what the fuck you mean here.

So, you're searching for hidden esoteric meaning in an incredibly simple sentence? "I like Shawn's match with Undertaker more than any Rockers match I've ever seen." What about that needs to be further explained? Where are the super-secret hidden meanings that I'm trying to covertly convey? What possible other unstated baggage does such a statement bring with it? How is that not clear?

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not looking for esoteric meaning at all. But obviously you wrote what you wrote for some reason that related to my comment about Michaels peak being during his tenure as a Rocker. If not then the statement is just ridiculous and serves no purpose in the thread. I mean I could say something like "I really enjoyed CW Anderson" right here and it would be an accurate assessment of my feelings, but it would have no logical place in this thread. "I liked Shawn v. Taker more than any Rockers match" is obviously supposed to mean something more than just that in this context. If not it's just ridiculous.

[ohtani's jacket]

Well, stunningrover, I told you an Eddie Guerrero fan might disagree.

 

I've seen most of the Guerreros stuff in Mexico and Chavo Sr. was clearly the best of the Guerreros. Eddie was never really a "lucha style worker." He always looked like a US pro-wrestler to me. I don't think the Gringos stuff holds up compared to other heel trios, and I don't see how working lucha brawls was a problem when so many other great 90s feuds had awesome brawling trios matches. I also think that working NJPW moves in AAA matches is a strike against Eddie, at least from my perspective.

 

It's understandable if people like Rey and Eddie's early work, but there seems to be an inbuilt prejudice that they can't have done their best work in the WWE, because it's the WWE and the WWE has always been a shitty promotion work-wise. I wouldn't felt that way too had I not watched a ton of lucha lately and been involved in the WWF and WCW projects at smarkschoice.

 

As for judging one babyface against another, Tito was a Ricky Steamboat type face, Bret was a wannabe Gretsky who thought he was a role model and Rey Mysterio has been an underdog. How do you compare the three? There's not a lot of common ground there.

[stunning_grover]

Honestly I can't believe anyone could watch modern Rey and sarcastically say he's having "good" matches that run five minutes and that this isn't a "great" thing, while holding up his run in 95-96 as his pinnacle. Don't get me wrong, you can like what you like. I've always thought that the people who don't like modern Rey as much as 96 Rey basically boil down to people who preferred the novelty of a fresh guy doing crazy shit and you've basically admitted as much. And I'm a guy that likes 95-97 Rey an awful lot.

 

But let's be honest - modern Rey isn't working five minute matches that people are calling great. Modern Rey is working ten, fifteen, twenty plus minute matches that people are calling great. I'm not going to speak to the AAA stuff because I've seen a handful of it, but in WCW he wasn't getting near the time on average that he gets now. It's literally not even open for discussion. Hell even in his most highly touted WCW match v. Eddy at HH 97 goes less than fifteen minutes.

 

But nitpicking about time is mostly unimportant. What really gets me is that people really believe Rey hasn't improved his babyface work, particularly as a guy who sells, times comebacks, et. Having watched a lot of 95-96 Rey recently, I really can't see how anyone could say that Rey hasn't drastically improved in that regard or that his performance in the 05 SD match with Eddy isn't a great example of that. 96 Rey could have never had a series of matches like 06 Rey had with Mark Henry. And the fact that he is the most over face act on the roster besides maybe Jeff Hardy is a testament to this. Rey is on the same level of Steamboat and Morton as a babyface worker.

 

The Hansen v. Vader comparison is odd to me too, in that Hansen clearly didn't rely entirely on stiffness and Vader was arguably more reckless than Hansen. That Flair match - which isn't even good really - is a great example of that as Vader took extreme liberties with Flair to the point where Ric was essentially begging him to back off during the match. So far as I can tell that is worse than a blind guy occasionally potato shotting someone.

I agree that Rey Jr.'s WCW matches were generally too short, including the famous Halloween Havoc 1997 match. And you're right, nitpicking about time is unimportant. But I diagree with 1996 Rey Jr. not being able to have matches against Mark Henry on the level of 2006 Rey Jr.'s matches with Mark Henry. They matches would be different, but I don't see why 1996 Rey Jr. wouldn't have been able to pull off a match of at least similar quality. People are talking about 1996 Rey Jr. as if he completely didn't understand anything about psychology, but I think that's wrong. Sure, he may have learned things over the years, but in 1996, he was already telling great stories. The difference is that in 1996, his style was different and more high flying and that makes it seem like there is less psychology involved.

 

About Hansen and Vader, I think that Hansen making Vader's eye pop out was worse than anything Vader has ever done. With Vader, you knew you were going to be in for a fight. With Hansen, you just never knew what could happen.

 

 

Well, stunningrover, I told you an Eddie Guerrero fan might disagree.

 

I've seen most of the Guerreros stuff in Mexico and Chavo Sr. was clearly the best of the Guerreros. Eddie was never really a "lucha style worker." He always looked like a US pro-wrestler to me. I don't think the Gringos stuff holds up compared to other heel trios, and I don't see how working lucha brawls was a problem when so many other great 90s feuds had awesome brawling trios matches. I also think that working NJPW moves in AAA matches is a strike against Eddie, at least from my perspective.

 

It's understandable if people like Rey and Eddie's early work, but there seems to be an inbuilt prejudice that they can't have done their best work in the WWE, because it's the WWE and the WWE has always been a shitty promotion work-wise. I wouldn't felt that way too had I not watched a ton of lucha lately and been involved in the WWF and WCW projects at smarkschoice.

 

As for judging one babyface against another, Tito was a Ricky Steamboat type face, Bret was a wannabe Gretsky who thought he was a role model and Rey Mysterio has been an underdog. How do you compare the three? There's not a lot of common ground there.

Liking or disliking WWE has nothing to do with it. By the way, I actually like 1984 WWF through 1995 WWF (but it's true that I don't like 1998 WWF through current WWE). But again, this has nothing to do with it. For example, I am not claiming that Tajiri had his peak prior to WWE (because I think his best work was in WWE). But it's just that I really believe that Rey Jr.'s best work was his 1995-1996 AAA work (and also his 1996 ECW and 1996 WCW work was really good).

 

And I agree that it's hard to compare babyfaces with each other, but like someone already mentioned, sometimes you just have to try to make comparisons in things like polls.

 

 

Anyway, maybe it's time for a new comparison? Bret Hart or Owen Hart?

[Bix]

1998 through current WWE? 1998 WWF like is a completely different promotion from current non-Raw WWE.

[Dylan Waco]

Not saying Rey had no psych or no storytelling pre-WWE, but I honestly can't see how anyone could watch Rey's 06 run where he was having great bouts with Finlay, Orton, Henry, et. next to his 96 run in WCW and think that his matches hadn't got dramatically better on those respective fronts. The only areas where Rey's matches have gotten noticeably "worse" is in the wildness of the highspots.

 

On Bret v. Owen, I think Owen had far more natural talent than Bret, but he didn't get the chances Bret got for a variety of reasons. If we are talking versatility and mechanics I think Owen wins for sure, but you can't discount the fact that Bret had a huge number of quality matches over the years. There is a reason that Bret was the star that came out of that family.

[Dylan Waco]

1998 through current WWE? 1998 WWF like is a completely different promotion from current non-Raw WWE.

 

What I really don't get about a statement like that is that someone could find something like late 80's WWF better than 04-07 WWE. I understand people are in to different things but week in - week out quality wise, I can't think of any argument for late 80's over ANY year this decade in WWE.

[Grimmas]

1998 through current WWE? 1998 WWF like is a completely different promotion from current non-Raw WWE.

 

What I really don't get about a statement like that is that someone could find something like late 80's WWF better than 04-07 WWE. I understand people are in to different things but week in - week out quality wise, I can't think of any argument for late 80's over ANY year this decade in WWE.

 

As shitty as old WWF is, my favourite show ever is Survivor Series 1989. Its all about awesome characters interacting, that makes it amazing.

[Loss]

I think when people make that argument, they're referring to the booking more than the wrestling. At least I hope so.

[S.L.L.]

This is an excerpt of something I wrote about Rey shortly after the Benoit murder/suicide, which should explain my temperament.

 

He doesn't wrestle like he did in 1996 anymore. Well, no shit, Sherlock. If you wrestled that way in 1996, you wouldn't be wrestling the same way in 2006, either. No one would, and you shouldn't be thinking less of him for not trying. It's not like there's only one way to have a good wrestling match. A while back, when word got out that WWE was "banning" a number of big, flippy, high-flying moves, a bunch of people got cheesed off because they thought it would prevent the cruiserweights from having good matches. "It would take away what makes the cruiserweights unique". Because when I think of "unique" wrestlers, I think of an entire division of guys working the exact same style of match ad nauseum. Really fucking unique. "All cruiserweights are flyers" was an obvious bullshit talking point when it first appeared in the WCW Cruiserweight division. It's a decade later, and people are still buying into it? Oh, and Rey's a luchador, and luchadors are only high-flyers, too. That Blue Panther, what a spot machine. So Rey doesn't wrestle like he did in 1996 anymore. So the fuck what? Is Rey's 2006 style invalid just because his 1996 style was valid? Only one style of wrestling is good? You need to do moonsaults to be a great worker? Fuck, Rey still does lots of high-flying shit. In the Orton match, he did AJ Styles' stupid Asai moonsault DDT thingy about a million times better than Styles ever did. He busts out a bunch of flying offense in this match. The big difference offensively is that he's no longer dashing about the ring from spot to spot to spot anymore. His wrestling is a lot slower paced now, and there's a bigger emphasis on selling for his opponent, but a surprisingly large chunk of his offense is still there. But no, he's not wrestling EXACTLY THE SAME as he did in 1996, so it's no good.

I think this all still holds true. People can like and dislike whoever they please, but a guy changing styles over the course of his career isn't really a criticism of that wrestler in and of himself, particularly if he takes to that new style very well. A lot of criticism of current Rey tends to read as "Rey used to wrestle one way, now he wrestles another way, therefore it's bad", which is a really ignorant, closed-minded way of looking at things.

 

Rey has become an efficient but typical WWE worker. Kudos for him for adapting to this dull style (and getting roided to the grill in te process).

Man, if the "typical WWE worker" were as good as Rey has been since signing with them, I'd probably still watch all their weekly programming. But that aside, people making more measured criticisms of Rey acknowledge that he's done well adjusting to the "WWE style", but still aren't interested in his current work because they find that style dull. I wonder how exactly they would define that style, and why it would tend to make matches in that style dull.

[Frankensteiner]

As for judging one babyface against another, Tito was a Ricky Steamboat type face, Bret was a wannabe Gretsky who thought he was a role model and Rey Mysterio has been an underdog. How do you compare the three? There's not a lot of common ground there.

I'm not sure if I understand your point. Comparing guys working in different environements is what people do all the time. If you voted in the SC Greatest Wrestler poll, which I believe you did, you had to engage in ranking different wrestlers working different styles and working different promotions. So if you indeed sent in a ballot, you're contradicting yourself here.

[Bix]

As far as Jarrett goes, I'm planning on converting all of the tapes I have with USWA Challenge episodes so maybe I'll do some writeups and/or uploads. I remember there being an oddly great Jarrett/Travis vs Chico Torres/Sweet Daddy Falcone match that was all due to Jarrett and Travis being great. In the meantime I can rip and upload the Gilbert match w/ the Dusty finish.

[stunning_grover]

I made the WWF/WWE statements to show that it's not like I never liked the company. So, I wasn't necessarily talking about in-ring product there. I was more referring to the overall feel of the shows (and yes, also the booking).

 

By the way, I know WWF attitude era is different from current WWE era, but I don't like either era (although I think WWF attitude era is much worse).

 

Anyway, like I said, it's not like I think it's impossible to have your best years in WWE. I mentioned Tajiri as example. But I also think Chris Jericho is much better now than he was in the early years of his career.

 

 

Rey has become an efficient but typical WWE worker. Kudos for him for adapting to this dull style (and getting roided to the grill in te process).

Man, if the "typical WWE worker" were as good as Rey has been since signing with them, I'd probably still watch all their weekly programming. But that aside, people making more measured criticisms of Rey acknowledge that he's done well adjusting to the "WWE style", but still aren't interested in his current work because they find that style dull. I wonder how exactly they would define that style, and why it would tend to make matches in that style dull.

 

I think that El-P, who made the comment, meant that Rey Jr. basically "lowered" himself by adapting to the WWE style. If so, I agree with him.

 

Of course, Rey Jr. is one of the top five workers in WWE right now, so it's not like he is the average WWE worker in terms of quality... but still he is a typical WWE worker (who just happens to be way better than the average worker on the roster) in that he changed his style in favour of the WWE style.

 

And how to define WWE style... I'm not sure how to define it, but 2000s WWE style sure isn't the same as 1995/1996 AAA style. I know that in the end it's all subjective, but I definitely prefer 1995/1996 AAA style over 2000s WWE style.

 

By the way, I understand that Rey Jr. basically "had to" change his style... and I understand that this changing of style was a process that had already started in WCW around 1998/1999... but that doesn't change the fact that he is not the Rey Jr. from 1995/1996, which is the Rey Jr. I prefer.

[Grimmas]

If he was still Rey Jr. from 95/96 he would be in a wheelchair for life.

[S.L.L.]

Rey has become an efficient but typical WWE worker. Kudos for him for adapting to this dull style (and getting roided to the grill in te process).

Man, if the "typical WWE worker" were as good as Rey has been since signing with them, I'd probably still watch all their weekly programming. But that aside, people making more measured criticisms of Rey acknowledge that he's done well adjusting to the "WWE style", but still aren't interested in his current work because they find that style dull. I wonder how exactly they would define that style, and why it would tend to make matches in that style dull.

 

I think that El-P, who made the comment, meant that Rey Jr. basically "lowered" himself by adapting to the WWE style. If so, I agree with him.

That still doesn't really say anything...how does adapting yourself to the WWE style automatically "lower" you?

 

And how to define WWE style... I'm not sure how to define it, but 2000s WWE style sure isn't the same as 1995/1996 AAA style. I know that in the end it's all subjective, but I definitely prefer 1995/1996 AAA style over 2000s WWE style.

That's all good and well, but "it's all subjective" is supposed to be the beginning of the discussion, not the end of it.

 

Also, there's the matter of sub-styles - Konnan, Perro Aguayo, Cien Caras, Pierroth Jr., and Killer all worked 95/96 AAA style, too. While there are some large, overriding shared traits, I don't think any of us would argue they were working the same style Rey was. It really shouldn't be "95/96 AAA style vs. 2000's WWF/E style" as much as "95/96 AAA undercard high workrate style vs. 2000's WWF/E upper midcard designated workrate ghetto style".

 

Personally, I tend to think of it less in terms of the style a wrestler works than the roles they play. I know you don't mean it like this, but saying Rey reached the pinnacle of his abilities working the role of high energy undercarder heating up the crowd for Killer matches really feels like a damning criticism of him.

 

Just eyeballing it, the first obvious difference I see in the styles is the flashier offense of the 95/96 AAA undercard high workrate style. I don't want to get all "MOVES~!" here, but I don't think I have to, because it's 2009, and if you still prefer that style, you obviously found something there once the shiny newness of it all wore off. I don't deny that something is there...I just don't see what it is that makes it inherently better than 2000's WWF/E upper midcard designated workrate ghetto style.

[Guest DietSoda]

Here's a question I'm wondering...

 

When do you guys think WWF/E was at it's booking peak? Was the Attitude Era (despite it's relatively weak work-rate) "better booked" than present-day WWE, despite having a vastly shorter number of quality matches?

 

Whenever I speak to casual fans, they talk about missing the "way it used to be (Attitude Era)"... to me, the rose-tinted glasses theory applies here, as wrestling (or anything, for that matter) is remembered more fondly by memory of your youth. Granted it was more "cutting edge" and that was the appeal in the late 90's, but would you consider it a well-booked promotion?

 

Mysterio being on the level of Morton and Steamboat as a babyface worker is an interesting point, and one I'd agree with. I'd actually go as far as to say Rey is better at this point than both of them. I could be way off, though.