World's Worst Man

The problem is, the "criteria" I use, is just me putting into words what I like in wrestling. It's not some arbitrary thing I just came up with. In my blog entry on the subject, the criteria I listed are pretty basic and general, and open to quite a bit of interpretation based on what style the match is (only exception would be selling, to a degree). Execution in a brawl is going to be different than execution in a technical match. I know enough to not expect king's road in the WWE. But that doesn't mean I can't compare the matches. All pro-wrestling shares certain elements. Past that, I just make the comparison based on which match did better in its style than the other. Ultimately what it boils down to is someone not caring about certain things in a wrestling match, while the other person does. If both sides present a decent argument, all that's left to be said is "to each their own, it is what it is". There's really no point in arguing past that, unless someone can come up with a contradiction/double standard to attack the person's position. Even so, you can't prove that one view is right and the other is wrong. Someone could come up with a realistic argument for why Giant Singh is a great wrestler, and what could you say to that? The argument would obviously have nothing to do with story-telling, execution, selling, crowd-manipulation, basic coordination, acting ability, etc etc, but those things obviously wouldn't matter to this person. That is of course an extreme example, but the premise is similar to what really goes on. Nothing can be proven in a subjective discussion, because the standards can be changed from person to person. That's why I always say it's the strength of the argument that determines who looks good and who doesn't. Of course, many people don't even bother presenting a good argument, but that's another subject for another time

I see a match, I like it. I explain why I like it. It's really as simple as that, even if you want to make it seem like some big, technical analysis. So I go in expecting some very basic, fundamental and general things. Cry me a fucking river, because everyone does that to some degree or another. I can just put it into words, when a lot of people either can't or don't want to. Maybe some people like discussing and comparing wrestling matches? Did that ever occur to you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you one of those idiots who bitch about people who discuss wrestling on some intelligent level? Fuck off. People who do that do it because they enjoy watching wrestling with their brain turned on and then discussing it. It's as simple as that. Typical. "It served a purpose". That's pretty general there. Indy guys doing contrived matwork "serves a purpose". Yet you don't seem to like that too much. Double standards. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. And a little pretentious. I only look for general, fundamental things in all forms of wrestling. Things that if they were to be lacking, you don't really have pro-wrestling. Anything past that is completely dependant on the style. I actually did a blog entry and a post at NMB about that, so maybe do some resarch next time you "fucking retard" It's simply a matter of putting things together and making a judgment call. Comparing different styles of wrestling can be done if one knows what to look for and what not to look for in a given style. Which is actually what I've said in the past, but by all means, continue under the assumption that I'm only looking for one style of pro-wrestling in every match I see. I'll continue to think you're a "watch with your brains turned off and bitch and cry about people who intelligently discuss wrestling" moron.

I'm shedding many tears for Benoit vs. Bret and Liger vs. Pillman being so low. I'd confidently put them both top 15 for the 90's and probably top 25 for the time period listed, especially the former.

I missed the point of the match? Even though I said it was really good? When did you turn into a whiney fanboy? For a guy who nitpicks the shit out of indy wrestling, your criteria is pretty soft for other promotions. Use your friggin head. If the gap-filler stuff doesn't matter, why even pay attention to the match? Do you just phase out 5 minutes into the match and start paying attention during the stretch run? If I'm comparing two matches, both of which are relatively equal in terms of story/build/selling, I'm obviously going to say the match with the better body-work was better. It's a no-fucking-brainer. So if I say Angle-UT is great, then a match with more or less equal story and better body-work (Rey-Eddy from June for instance) becomes really great. And that pretty much ends up at the top of the scale, even though I've seen much better matches. Seems kind of pointless. So yea, to me Angle vs. UT was very good and not great because while it had great story and build, it wasn't rock-solid from start to finish, whereas great matches are. Whine about criteria all you want. At least I apply the same criteria to all wrestling I see, rather than selectively deciding what to praise and what to bash based on which promotion is producing the wrestling. After that, it's really just a matter of comparing a match to others to decide where I rank it.

Wow, a mark who is offended that I don't think Angle and UT are good workers. You don't get around much do you?

I must say, Angle vs. UT was booked brilliantly. If Angle was anything better than "above-average" and UT was better than "suck", it would have been a great match. Some of the counters were great and the build to the moves was great and the finish was fantastic (ie, the pre-planned/booked stuff), but there seemed to be a lot of uninteresting/irrelevant filler stuff in the middle (stuff probably done on the fly). Still, I thought it was a really good match, probably the 2nd best I've seen from WWE this year.

Akira Maeda/Yoshiaki Fujiwara/Osamu Kido/Nobuhiko Takada/Kazuo Yamazaki vs. Antonio Inoki/Tatsumi Fujinami/Kengo Kimura/Umanosuke Ueda/Kantaro Hoshino (3/26/85) I'd be hard-pressed to name a better 8+ man tag match. Akira Maeda/Yoshiaki Fujiwara/Osamu Kido/Nobuhiko Takada/Kazuo Yamazaki vs. Tatsumi Fujinami/Kengo Kimura/Shiro Koshinaka/George Takano/Kantaro Hoshino (9/16/86) Not great, but still really good. Jushin Liger/Tokimitsu Ishizawa/El Samurai/Shinjiro Otani vs. Great Sasuke/SATO/Shiryu/TAKA Michinoku (6/15/94) Gran Hamada/El Samurai/Jushin Liger/Wild Pegasus vs. Tokimitsu Ishizawa/TAKA Michinoku/Shinjiro Otani/Koji Kanemoto (3/14/96) These 2 are just a cut below the previous match.

Assuming the title of the thread isn't meant to be a joke/hyperbole, Samoa Joe and Bryan Danielson say hi. From about 5000 miles ahead. And that's just the US.

I would think the rules are shaped as time goes on based on what is accepted by the majority of the workers/bookers. It's almost uniformly accepted that irish whips work in wrestling. It's almost uniformly accepted that a vertical suplex is a useable move, even though it would never happen in a real fight. Those are just things that have become accepted as pro-wrestling evolved. At some point, an arbitrary line must have been drawn in order to at least allow some suspension of disbelief in the audience. That threshold is subjective, so there's really no "right or wrong" debate. As with any subjective art, it's the strength of the argument that matters.

It comes down to whether one thinks no-selling big moves and not selling fatigue/long-term damage is alright with them or not. To me, it's not, because it's more dramatic when things are sold and it's generally not logical in terms of pro-wrestling when moves aren't sold. One can say "Well pro-wrestling is inherently illogical", but to that I'd say that there are certain "rules" that pro-wrestling follows so that it doesn't become completely absurd. If one didn't care about the logic at all, where does one draw the line? You could theoretically have the most business exposing and ridiculously stupid looking match if logic is completely thrown out the window.

Now I see why you liked Angle-Benoit at RR '03 Ideally, wrestling should be somewhat logical and have a point. Guys rattling of a bunch of spots for no reason, and then no-selling them is kind of nonsensical in my book.

Other promotions acquired the rights to the Tiger Mask gimmick after the original left New Japan. The 2nd Tiger Mask was Mitsuharu Misawa in All Japan. The 3rd Tiger Mask was Koji Kanemoto from New Japan. The 4th Tiger Mask had no real identity outside of the Tiger Mask gimmick. He originally started using the gimmick while with Michinoku Pro, but jumped to New Japan a few years ago.

I call it a spectacle when the match is lacking logic and is instead just a bunch of spots done to pop the crowd. Misawa vs. Kobashi from 3/1/03 being a perfect example of that. Those lame TLC matches from a few years ago are another example.

Other than the guys who've already done it, I don't really know. Logic would say that a Benoit or a Liger would have the mind for it, but they might have a tough time physically (at this point in their careers). I really think it just requires a certain amount of wrestling IQ, combined with a somwhat reasonable arsenal of offense. Then again, Kojima and Nakamura had a really good 60 minute draw, and Kojima is one of the goofiest wrestlers you'll find, and Nakamura doesn't really have a large moveset. Although the problem with that match actually was that they ran out of things to do near the end and starting repeating stuff. It could have been better than it was. So yea, for an excellent or better 60 minute match, it would require guys with a good wrestling mind and good moveset. Lesser guys can do 60 minutes, but I doubt they'd ever reach those heights.

There's masturbatory matches and then there's excessive stalling, running out of offense, etc. An incredibly long singles match is going to run into the latter problem eventually, that's why it's hard to really think going 90+ minutes is a good idea. The wrestlers would need huge movesets and the ability to pace that offense well, in order to pull it off. If the wrestler's can go long while keeping the blatant stalling/time-killing to a minimum, then go for it. But I'd say there's only a handful of guys who could do it.

Oh, they don't actually say it's going to be a replacement for Ki, so it could be anything. I've got no idea.

Big name from Japan would seem like the only thing that would fit the bill here, doesn't it?

69. HHH/STEVE AUSTIN VS CHRIS BENOIT/CHRIS JERICHO 5/21/01 This seems way too low to me. I'd probably have it in my top 20 or so. I thought it was one of the few 1999-2005 matches that was actually close to being ****. GREAT SASUKE VS TAKA MICHINOKU CANADIAN STAMPEDE 97 (especially this), THE ROCK VS CHRIS JERICHO ROYAL RUMBLE 02, THE ROCK VS CHRIS JERICHO NO MERCY 01, KURT ANGLE VS EDDIE GUERRERRO WRESTLEMANIA XX, BRET HART VS SHAWN MICHAELS SURVIVOR SERIES 92, BRET HART VS RICKY STEAMBOAT 3/8/86 and BRET HART VS RIC FLAIR 10/12/92. I would expect all of these to be better, and in some cases a fair bit better, than a lot of the stuff to come. The Sasuke-TAKA and Rock-Jericho matches particularly seemed much too low. They seemed more like top 40 matches, maybe even a bit higher. Those are the only ones I would say were grievous errors.

I think it depends on what's being discussed. If it's a discussion on the best matches, I'd like to think that the strengths and weaknesses of each match will determine their placement (so a fair bit of objectivity). If it's a discussion on favourite matches, then it's just a matter of which matches the person enjoyed the most (completely subjective). The former requires some relevant points to support the opinion, the latter doesn't. And the problem comes when people mix the 2 and don't want to discuss anything. So then you have people firing off "best match" lists, and then they (or even others) say "I don't have to explain why it's there, I just enjoyed it" if anyone questions their picks.

If someone is going to concoct a list of the top workers, matches, etc, they should have knowledge of the wrestling world, not just one region. Just like if someone was going to compile a list of the best musical albums of all times, they should be knowledgable about all genres of music, not just one. I have a problem with people who have a very limited view of wrestling and like to run their mouths off about "best this and best that", while taking an indignant attitude along the way. If someone has seen nothing but mainstream American stuff, then either make a note of that, or just call it "best matches from mainstream American promotions" list. All I said about the non-American matches was that there are pretty solid arguments for putting many matches ahead of the very best WWE stuff. Which to me, means a statement like "any top10 that doesn't include Austin-Bret from WMXIII is worthless" (or a similar statement) is foolish. I never said it was impossible for someone well-versed in all genres of wrestling to include WWE matches in a best matches list.

Not quite assumed nor not quite nothing. But the point is that an all encompassing list doesn't make sense if the person has a limited view of the wrestling world.

I could probably name about 20 I must say, it's perplexing to see people who've likely seen very little, if any non-American wrestling get all indignant about a WWF match not being in someone's top10. There is wrestling outside of the US, and there are quite a few matches with rather strong arguments to be put well ahead of the highest-end WWF stuff. If someone wants to talk about match quality or lists and they aren't qualified to talk about the pro-wrestling world as a whole, it's simply a matter of saying "top 10 American matches" or something similar.

It's been fairly well-known for years now, that Andre was actually about 6'10, and not the 7'5 that the WWF claimed him as. Just like the WWF didn't draw 93,000 to WM3. Embellishment is a pro-wrestling way of life. Good pic though.

I agree. It was good in a wrestling quality kind of way, and it was the sort of match that the casuals would cream for too. Lots of drama and blood and stuff. Oh well, whatever.

Warrior vs. Hogan I was a spectacle. If one watches wrestling to see good wrestling, it wasn't a good match. It's really no different from a match like Kobashi-Akiyama (7/10/04), in that some people mark for it, but it really wasn't a great match from a "quality wrestling" standpoint. It was a spectacle, and some people like that sort of stuff. And this list doesn't seem to be based solely on the quality of the match, that's why Warrior-Hogan is on it.