World's Worst Man

Matches shouldn't get passes because of where they took place. One might not as well use star ratings if there's going to be different standards for every promotion. Every good match in any promotion shares some of the same qualities anyway. After that, one can look for different things based on what kind of match is being wrestled, and then it's just a matter of deciding whether one match did better in it's criteria than the next.

There's probably no point in doing a world-wide list, when it's doubtful that most of the people who will be involved haven't seen enough of the wrestlers who would generally be around the top 10-15. A Canada/US list might be a better idea.

Plenty of guys are more interested in making big bucks than they are about actually performing well.

Brock looks like a young Kris Kringle.

Some people say you can't compare different wrestling styles. I say nonsense. While different styles require one to look for different things, there are a number of criteria that are constant in all forms of pro-wrestling. Once that is known, all that is left in order to compare the different styles of pro-wrestling is to decide whether one match does a better job in its genre's specific criteria than the next. This is of course all my opinion, in case the reader is one of those who get offended whenever one doesn't add "In my opinion" at the end of every line they type. So here are four fairly general criteria, that I try to apply to every wrestling match I see. Selling. Without selling, pro-wrestling falls apart. Afterall, how is one able to simulate a real fight, when none of the techniques do any damage? This is perhaps the most important aspect to good pro-wrestling matches, yet so many completely ignore it when it's convenient. Great selling creates drama - One wrestler is getting dominated, only to reverse the tables with a big move. Both men are down, who will gain the upper hand? Great selling creates a greater sense of realism - Thrity minutes into the match, both men are slowing down, showing visible signs of fatigue and damage. Selling is the one of the best ways to make a wrestler or move look credible. It also makes the seller look good, if he can come back after being visibly hurt. Selling is important, and it's a shame that so many fans simply disregard the relevance of it, claiming it's "smarky overanalysis" whenever selling issues are mentioned. Building/Setting Up Spots. Building and/or setting up spots is an important component of wrestling logic. It doesn't make sense for a wrestler to rattle off a bunch of easily blockable/counterable spots, early in a match. The opponent isn't fatigued/damaged enough to be susceptible, so it doesn't make any sense for him to "allow" himself to be hit with those moves. This is where long-term build comes into play. Keeping spots for later in the match, when the opponent is more fatigued/damage, and thus more susceptible to the move. On the other hand, there's setting up spots in the short term. Using strikes or counters to setup a spot. This is generally, not a big problem for most wrestlers. However, there are some who don't seem to get this concept. As an example, without naming names, I recently saw a match where the wrestlers were in neutral positions, opposite one another. One of the combatants simply walked up to his opponent, grabbed him, and suplexed him. I don't think I need to explain the absurdity of that situation. Suffice to say, this is something else that ties into the logic of pro-wrestling. Competent execution. Simply put, making the moves and strikes look somewhat realistic and painful. If it's a brawl, the emphasis is on good-looking striking and creating an illusion of a struggle. If it's a technical match, the emphasis is on creating matwork that doesn't look completely contrived, and hitting moves that look somewhat painful to the opponent, without looking painful to the user. If this isn't present, the wrestling isn't believable. Which then makes the selling seem absurd. Transitions are also something that falls under this subject. Basically, properly changing the direction of a match. The wrestler's swap control segments, the match moves from a "feeling out" phase to a "control" phase, etc. Story. The story of the match. Two men, struggling on the mat, trying to wear their opponent down so they can hit their own big moves. A heel dominating the face, while the face attempts to fight his way back. A larger opponent trying to force his will on the smaller, quicker opponent, while the quicker wrestler tries to use his speed to his advantage. And countless other storylines that are played out in pro-wrestling matches. Without a story, why are they wrestling? These are basically the standards that I apply to all wrestling matches. The latter two topics have their own specific criteria based on what style of pro-wrestling is being used. As long as one doesn't try to apply a specific criteria to every pro-wrestling match, it is no problem to compare different styles of wrestling. And I must admit that there are occasionally times where one or more of the basic criteria are lacking, for perfectly acceptable reasons. I'd rather not get into that now, because it would likely take a lot of time to go through them all. But I'd certainly welcome any discussion about specific exceptions to the rule, or any discussion about this subject period. So there you have it. And once again, this is all my opinion. Just in case one doesn't understand the way online forums/blogs work.

All I remember about WXO was them showing a Kenta Kobashi & Jun Akiyama vs. Johnny Ace & Bart Gunn match from like May or June 1999, with dubbed in commentary. The guy announcing the match totally didn't know the names of Kobashi or Akiyama. They showed it to hype up Ace or Gunn's debut in the promotion or something.

Angle vs. a good worker he hasn't faced before. Benoit vs. almost anyone.

Tanahashi jobbing to AJ will make me sadface. The guy can't buy a victory anywhere it seems.

His partner is an upper midcard guy, the opponents are a lower midcard guy and a lowcard guy. Like I said, it might get a few people to go, but nothing that will really make a difference.

Who was hyping Joe vs. Liger? It was a 7 minute match, which had to be cut down due to time constraints. That match has as much relevance to Joe's ability as Lesnar vs. Goldberg has to Lesnar's ability. Just bringing up the spots and stiffness is failing to see why Joe is actually good in the first place. Anyone can throw stiff strikes, or use lots of suplexes. Lots of guys do, but they aren't regarded very highly. Joe is good because he works his spots in well, puts over the story well and he sells well. If spots and stiffness mattered, Low Ki is the best worker ever, and most guys who wrestled before 1990 sucked.

Joe's best matches annihilate Lesnar's best, it's not even close. Lesnar's best individual performance was close to being as good as Joe's best individual performance though, thats why I think Lesnar has a chance to be as good as Joe if he wrestles in a less restrictive enviroment, with better workers (NJ).

New Japan just killed the venue. Last year's 1/4 dome show was awful. The 5/4 show looked alright, but the main event was a Sumo Hall draw at best. The 10/8 show was also terrible. They're sticking Akebono in there with the hope that he'll draw somewhat of a walk-up crowd (he might), but it won't be significant. Not all Japanese promotions are in bad shape. NOAH draws, because their booking is sane, so the draws they have don't get devalued. Dragon Gate draws because they have their niche and put out a great product. New Japan doesn't draw because they've killed their draws with bad booking/MMA crap, and their big shows are usually crummy.

This, right here is very intriguing to me (and could bring about something more interesting and unique) than what you discussed. I would love to read more on this. A couple examples. Execution might be lacking late in a match to put over the fatigue/damage that each guy is dealing with. Mind you, in a lot of cases where I've seen that, it seems to be an intentional effort on the wrestlers' parts to make their moves more sluggish. Not properly selling a move would be acceptable in some cases, most notably if the bodypart that is used to do the move has been damaged before. So if one guy works over his opponents arm for most of the match, then a lariat isn't going to be as effective as it would normally be. Building to spots might not be necessary either, depending on the story of the match. If both guys had already wrestled earlier in the night, it would make sense that they would be worn down for their second match, and susceptible to "late match moves", early in the match. I'd imagine a story based around a "first time encounter" could also lead to early, big moves being exchanged, just to put over how neither guy knows enough about his opponent to defend against their offense. And then there's the oft-used "surprise your opponent by hitting a big move early". This works well if that story is actually played up (meaning it's an isolated move, and the body language/selling is right), which you saw a lot in All Japan matches back in the day. Basically, if the wrestling makes sense, and it's clear the wrestlers are trying to infer that logic, it's alright with me.

Even though we had a disagreement lately (which makes you an idiot I guess????) I will admit I mark hard for you.

Joe kills Brock based on their work itself. The question is, how would Brock do in an unrestricted enviroment? Since he's in New Japan now, we'll find out.

Normal reign, since he lost it back to the guy he won it from a few months later (Flair). But Flair's 2nd run with the title was actually the transitional reign, as after he won it back from Savage, he dropped it to Bret fairly quickly.

Thanks, as always.

Mariko Yoshida's pro-wrestling matwork > Kurt Angle's pro-wrestling matwork There, I said it.

It'd be one thing if her and MikeSC actually knew anything about in-ring work. From what I've seen of their posts, it's clear they don't though. So essentially you're arguing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and who make factually incorrect statements to try and support their opinion. And add to the fact that they're trolls who just want to stir up shit, and the end result is a worthless sack of humanity that should really be ignored by everyone. Ignore list is godliness.

Without seeing everyone's arguments, it's hard to say. Given how the poll breaks down, I'd probably say it's farther apart than what I actually think the difference in ability is. But that's just me.

Not to mention the numerous wrestlers who do better mat-work sequences than him, despite not even being close to as good as he was in the amateur ranks.

Also, Andre was lying down to try and get Maeda to come down to the mat with him. Obviously, Andre would have been able to manhandle him on the mat, just due to the size and strength advantage. Maeda refused the invitation of course and kept it standing.

Opinions aren't usually right or wrong, so the only way to determine which opinions are worthwhile and which are worthless is to base it on the strength of the argument. That review brings up many good points, so to dismiss it without thought would cause me to doubt whether one can actually support their own opinion. If one has a problem with the points being made, the best course of action would be to present a counter-argument that explains why those points were erroneous. Until that happens, I'd tend to believe that the negative feelings towards the match are more justified than the positive feelings. And if he's so biased towards the WWE, how does that explain the relatively fair ratings of other WWE matches, such as Rock vs. Hogan or the WMXX triple threat? Oh yes, you could also read some of his reviews of recent Japanese matches, where he absolutely tears some of those "highly regarded" matches to shreds. Seems like it's a fairly consistent approach to reviewing wrestling.

Heh, oddly enough I thought the WMXXI match was pretty good, while their Vengeance match was a masturbatory piece of crap. Maybe I should give the WM match another whirl, see if I pick up anything different. Also, Chris Cooey wrote a pretty good review of Angle vs. Benoit at RR 2003, which pretty much covers a lot of the problems I had with it. http://www.airraidcrash.com/review/crunch054.html#wwe

What? Are you just throwing shit at the wall now to see what sticks? You don't get a match that well done if someone is "completely dragging it down" as Angle apparently did. Oh yea, sorry. I guess I was just imaging the bad timing, bad selling and convoluted mat work. My bad.