Japanese audiances

[Guest Jubuki]

If the WWF fans can't "get" it, the blame lies with the wrestlers, not with the fans.

 

Not necessarily.  It's totally possible the fans, in some part, are lazy, inattentive, incapable of deep, rational thought.  This is true about any fanbase.  You have those who understand, and those who are morons.

 

I've seen matches that worked so much better with later viewings---however, if a match or a particular GENRE (in this case, the AJPW ME style) requires that, then it's a horribly flawed genre.

 

OR...the fans are lazy, inattentive, incapable of...etc...I seem to be repeating myself.

 

How many times have you sat down and looked at a wrestling match, ANY wrestling match, move for move, and, every time someone does something in the match, asked yourself why it was being done and what effect that was having on you?  I'm curious, although it's a bet that's already hedged in my mind.

 

Why do you say you were a rube because you PREFERRED a certain match?

 

No, he's saying it because he hadn't seen a wide enough sample size.  He was probably judging from a small base of total matches.  I still feel a little incomplete with the things from All Japan and All Japan Women's I've seen, but it's something I'm rectifying.  I want to make sure what I'm seeing really is there by watching as much before and after as possible.  I'm sure Tim feels/felt the same way regarding what he's discussing.

 

A lot of people called "Thin Red Line" a great movie. I call it amongst the worst movie I've ever watched. Am I wrong?

 

Wrong, tasteless, something along those lines, yes.

 

But---how GOOD were they?

 

Uhh...did you read his quote at all?

 

"There are no consistently better matches than (what) AJPW  in terms of quality, substance, and depth."

 

Quality, quality, quality, quality...all right, YOU tell ME what that means.  Last I checked, it means 'measure of goodness.'  If nothing surpassed AJPW in that time frame in the sense of 'measure of goodness', I would have to say that the matches were probably really good.  Or am I thinking too much about it?

 

If a match has psychology coming out of its pores and tons of stiff spots---but STILL isn't good---does that make the match any good?

 

Ummm...

 

Again, last I checked, the world may have suddenly turned on its head in the last .05 seconds since I thought about it...strong psychology is what tends to make a match good.

 

And let's not get carried away on our assumptions, either.  "Psychology," the most overused and improperly-used term in all the Net wrestling world, is nothing more than asking yourself, "Why is this wrestler doing this?"  It isn't as though some matches have MORE of it than others - there is still a reason behind everything that's going on, whether the match is terrible or it's fanfuckingtastic.  

 

If Misawa resorts to the Tiger Driver '91 to beat Kawada in the 6/94 match, it's because Kawada won't stop coming unless he's knocked out, and Misawa is willing to risk injuring Kawada to hold on to his belts and continue his record title reign, and Misawa knows the TD 91 can get the job done.  If Sid puts Kevin Nash in a neck vise three minutes in, it's because his stamina is terrible and he has to do something to rest until he's able to let Nash up for something else.  There is no "more or less", no "dripping out of its pores" -- it isn't a quantitative question.  It's "good," "bad," and everything in between.

 

Just so we're all clear.

 

I could care less what anybody says is great. jdw adores Misawa's work---I don't. jdw thinks the Destroyer is one of the best wokers in history---I don't.  It doesn't make me wrong. Doesn't make him wrong.

 

Well, it does make you wrong, actually...wrong, tasteless, something along tho---uhmm, well, I've said this too, haven't I?

 

If somebody says a match that I DON'T like is really good, it won't suddenly make the match any good.

 

True...but being able to explain WHY you feel a match is or isn't good in the face of those who disagree is what separates those whose opinions are worth one's time from those who glibly say a match/worker/promotion/style is (or is not) something with no further explanation and expect everyone to give two shits.

 

People say Steamboat v Flair at WrestleWar '89 was the best match they ever had. 5 stars is a pretty univesal rating.

 

Ooooh, the "people say" argument.  Trying to establish an "us vs. them" tone, to make yourself the babyface in this, isn't exactly going to dig you out of the intellectual hole you're in.  Don't tell us what some match is or isn't.  EXPLAIN WHY IT IS OR IS NOT.  Is that really such an unheard-of thing?

 

Just as a brief example of what I mean regarding this match.  Scott Keith calls Wrestlewar the best men's match he's ever seen.  All right, that's fine, he's more than welcome to his opinion.  But, something he's said about All Japan rather eludes me.  He's called the AJPW style 'boring' before, and that's OK; it's obvious some people don't latch onto it like others do.  

 

HOWEVER, in his explanation of why the Wrestlewar match is so great, he said "It's great to see two guys freely chop the crap out of each other and know they can trust the other one."  To which I say BIG FUCKING DEAL.  Every mid-90's All Japan main event I've seen has had two, four, six guys beating the crap out of each other, and, although they all didn't get along, they all trusted each other and knew the others weren't going to intentionally injure them.  So when Keith says Wrestlewar is great, I have to wonder about his reasoning behind it.

 

There's a reason why there are people whose opinions are treated with respect.  It's because they can explain, it's because they can see something there and appreciate a match on a different level than someone else.  And, if that person's evidence and points are standing on firm ground, it means that person is better off than the average yahoo.  They have something they really enjoy, rather than just being some goof on a message board who grouses about things but never gives any thought or direction to his comments aside from a Beavis-like, "This sucks."

 

It won't make their opinions more relevant than mine.

 

Actually, it will.  Like I said, if someone can explain within reason why something excites them or bores them stiff, that's worthwhile.  If it's just a "this rules/this sucks" with little explanation, who's to know if it's verifiable?  Who's to know if it's trustworthy?

 

And the match, flat-out, was not terribly good (yes, I have seen it, though not in the past few years). It was arguably the best of the NJ heavyweight matches, but the NJ heavyweights were rather bad.

 

Wrong again...I'd really like to know what it was Mutoh was doing that made him better from the 80's to 93 to make that Hashimoto match in '95 seem so "not terribly good."

 

Well...hmm...Mutoh WAS showing up in the U.S. a lot more at that point...God knows we can't give him credit for carrying a far-over-the-hill Flair to something good and a dull-and-plodding Scott Norton to something good...nope, shouldn't do that at all.

 

Stop caring what others think.

 

I'm guessing this is one of those unintentionally funny moments in the thread.

 

People called Hashimoto a great worker back in the mid-90's. He wasn't.

 

And...this would be wrong!  12/94 vs. Hase, the Mutoh match, much of the rest of the G1 '95, the match vs. Tenryu on 2/94, the Choshu from G1 96, vs. Takada at the Dome, vs. Liger in 2/94, the tag title runs with Junji freaking Hirata that were good...Hash has an impressive resume.

 

People called Misawa the best worker in the world. He wasn't.

 

Well, this is probably true, but considering your comments about Kawada/Kobashi/etc., I'll assume you'd say the same things about them...and you would be wrong again.  The entirety of 1993 cemented the greatness of all three, and they went even further down the line; those matches have been discussed ad infinitum; I've done a good deal of it.  The stretch from 4/95 to 12/96 cemented it for Taue, etc.

 

Take a stand. Don't go along with what others think or you'll lose your ability to differentiate what is REALLY your opinion and what is simply others' opinions that you are just parroting.

 

ORRRRRRRR...and stick with me on this one, because WHOO BOY, it's a STEEEE-RETCH:

 

It could just be...maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically, that Tim, myself, and others have...*drum roll* SEEN THE MATCHES AND SAW SOMETHING GREAT IN THEM THAT ALLOWED US TO FORMULATE OUR OWN OPINIONS.

 

Whew.  Hoo boy.  OK, we're over that one...the wimmens and the chillins can come out of the bomb shelter; I think we all survived it.  Just...mull that one over for a while before replying to this with more of your lunacy...well, mull over this, and everything else, too, for that matter.

 

I find the quote system on the board to be less than intuitive.

 

Why am I tempted to remove the "the quote system on the board" bit and replace it with something entirely different?  Anyone?

[Guest dawho5]

This argument, without all the lengthy speech, is downright GameFAQs worthy.  Seriously, what is the dispute here?  You are arguing about NOTHING!

 

Loss4Words was right when he said that at some point, the fans who got behind Bret Hart (a great technical wrestler and storyteller in the ring) turned to Stone Cold (a beer-guzzling brawler with a limited moveset), there was a change.  The change was from wrestling to sports entertainment.  Do you honestly think the WWF could have gotten as popular with the masses as it is without changes?  It went from some promos and skits between the wrestling to some wrestling between the promos and skits.  No longer do you see 15 minute long matches on a TV show.  You are lucky if you see a 10 minute match that isn't the main event, and undercard matches rarely break 5.  There are, however, 20 minute long promos throughout the show, featuring all the popular mic workers.

 

The fact that WWF fans mark out for the Rock, with his spit slap, People's Elbow, and stale catch-phrase routine doesn't make them stupid.  It just means they are entertained by different things.  If Vince had stayed with just a wrestling promotion, he would be somewhere in a territory even today, running his promotion in hopes that someone wasn't going to come steal away his wrestlers from him.  He knew that wrestling in and of itself couldn't be mass marketed in America.  Your average American isn't going to sit down and think about all the depth of the story behind a match and wonder at the amazing ring psychology.  They want to see people flying through the air or some big guy throwing somebody through a table.  If you think that's racist, I happen to be an American.  It's just the honest truth.  Vince knew he had to change the product to mass-market it, and he did.

 

Now the debate comes to whether or not WWF fans are wrestling fans.  Some are, these are the people who have watched for many, many years, and still enjoy the product even though the wrestling has been all but removed.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It's not as if there is no entertainment value in the product the WWF puts out.  If there wasn't, why would it be so popular?  There are also sports entertainment fans.  These would be the newer WWF fans who have never really experienced wrestling outside of the newer WWF.  They aren't stupid either.  They just haven't been exposed to anything else.  Some have watched puro and prefer the WWF.  There is no fault in ANY of this, as wrestling and sports entertainment are geared towards one thing: entertaining people.  Some are entertained by one, some the other, and some both.  To argue about which is better or more sensible or right or wrong is beyond foolish.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

When I initially watch a (great) match, I watch it for enjoyment.  I let it take me to whereever it wants to go.  No strict analysis, no deep criticism.

 

When I watch it again (of course not on the same day), I see if it holds up, I enjoy it some more, notice a few things I had missed when I first saw it.

 

The third time usually comes furthered analysis, to see if there can be further enjoyment from it.  It is the 'little things' one catches that really make the match.  Then the match has depth, it has connections.  He did this move because of this.  The psychology is more prevelant.

 

The forth time is to take all those things into consideration and watch the match on 'another level', not simply for the instant enjoyment, but the enjoyment that comes along watching those connections, watching the little things mixed in with the big things.

 

Now this may be excessive, watching matches 5 times in order to judge whether or not it is a 'great' match, but the 'timeless' factor is very important.  Maybe not as important as the original viewing because thats when the match is the freshest but it is still a key component.  A 'good match' should remain good 10 years from now, it should remain good when you watch it for the 5th time, the 6th time.

 

MikeSc:

At a certain point, your admitted your dislike to AJPW could have prejudiced your opinion. You WANTED to hate it so much and maybe, just maybe, you eventually convinced yourself that yes, you DON'T like it.

- come on, wanting to be different for the sake of being different and willing yourself to hate a match and go against the majority is just as fuzzy as willing yourself to love a match.

 

Psychology = easier to suspend disbelief = emotional involvement.

 

Emotional Involvment is what drives all art, no?  We read a book to be wrapped up in its characters and storyline.  Ditto with a movie.  Wrestling has the same components.  I find it hard to believe one can keep that involvement when things don't make sense.  Shawshank Redemption is widely considered a great film (I havent heard a single dislike of this movie), if Red just all of a sudden started wearing bellbottoms and had a fro we wouldnt believe it, its not his character, we lose the attachment.  The same goes for wrestling.  When something that doesnt make sense in a wrestling match, that goes against the storyline and the characters involved, the tie is severed.

 

But I think I am preaching to the choir on this one.

[Guest MRFTW]

The only thing i'll add to this conversation is to say that people who for whatever reason like something that you don't aren't stupid BUT people who think less of those who don't like the same things or think the same way they do are the real dumb asses.

[Guest J*ingus]

Sigh.  So much ado about so very little.  A few points:

 

Jubuki, calm down, and be willing to admit, even once, that you're stating your opinions, and not cold hard facts handed down by God himself.  I counted no less than six separate times in your last post where you told Mike that he was "wrong" for having the opinions that he did about specific matches, wrestlers, or movies.  

 

Mike, I'm amazed to find you of all people arguing for the merits of relativism.  We liberals just might salvage you one of these days!  

 

A thought about thinking: who watches men in tights pretending to fight in order to think?  When I want to think, I go see Shakespeare, or read Stephen Hawking, or whatever.  Wrestling is entertainment, catharsis, and escapism.  Maybe you liked the AJPW stuff (and I am a huge Kobashi fan) because it had better psychology, made more sense, was more realistic, etc.  But when was the last time that a real fight or shoot match was ended with a lariat, or a TD91?  To an extent, wrestling IS fake, and saying that one style is better than another because it's LESS fake is odd.  As long as it's not TOO blatantly stupid (um, you're selling the wrong knee, Austin), I'll accept it.  Why are you trying to make me work while I'm on vacation?  

 

And a final note about watching matches several times on videotapes, as that has been mentioned here.  You're all forgetting that for the vast majority of wrestlers, they're doing what they do in order to entertain the live crowds in attendence that night.  Even though there are more people watching on TV, that's an afterthought to them.  Maybe they shouldn't think about it that way, but from what I've seen of the pre-smark wrestlers, that's how they do business.  The only reason they ever watch their own matches on video is to see how they looked to a third party.  They're not trying to have Classic ***** Matches For The Ages, they're just trying to get through the night, set up the angle for next week, and try not to kill themselves.  Flair and Steamboat had some of the best matches in history, and they never planned any of them ahead of time; except for the finish, they were all called in the ring and made up as they went along.

[Guest Jubuki]

Considering I've never bothered believing in God, I may as well be the one handing things down...

 

Besides, I should think it's perfectly obvious that these comments are my opinion - I don't have to admit it; it should be UNDERSTOOD.  But there I go talking about thinking and understanding with you people...

 

And, you know what?  He's still wrong.  If you don't know *what to look for* from what you're seeing, it's very easy to say someone isn't good.  I've seen more nuance and subtle development in 5 minutes of some Destroyer matches than I've ever seen in any length of time in a WWF ring, so I'm left to wonder just what exactly he's drawing from when making his (laugh) claims.  And so far, Mike's diatribes have had all the analytical and evidential depth of picking one's nose, so I'd think it's safe to say he is/was in over his head, and this probably isn't the place for him.

[Guest Loss4Words]

"I agree to certain extent here, however it all depends on who's making the comparison. If you have well rounded viewer with sensible opinions then yes I agree, however if it's some snobbish wannabe eliteist making the comparison then his opinion is just as bigoted as the WWF fan boy due to the 'Everything in the WWF sucks' style of thinking. The only difference is that the Puro fan generally has better spelling."

 

I don't think everything in the WWF sucks. I actually prefer US wrestling (the good stuff) to anything overseas. I'm just trying to make a point that I'm willing to give more than one company a chance because I realize that if you're truly a WRESTLING fan, then you will watch good wrestling, regardless of what banner looms in the background.

 

"So people choose to adopt that way of thinking, does that make them wrong? Some people just don't want to examine matches, they just like what they like."

 

I guess that's fine with me if it works for them, but please tell me how those people have anything, anything at all, to add to a message board if they aren't willing to go in-depth with their perspective. We're here to discuss wrestling and some analysis is going to take place. We're not just here to say "Ooh, Rock called Jericho a moose hunter. LOL!!". Unfortunately, that's the kind of stuff that seems to be polluting the WWF folder nowadays. If you really like something, it should be no problem at all to explain *why* you like it. Bravo to Mike for actually making some intelligent counterpoints to my post.

 

"Now here's where I really disagree. During my early teens the only thing I watched was the WWF yet I began to appreciate wrestling as an art form during this period, did this mean I wasn't a wrestling fan?"

 

No. We all have our starting points. It means that you're a WWF fan if all you watch is the WWF. If you're a wrestling fan, you would have watched WCW and gone to local indy shows too. There's a difference between liking one company and liking wrestling as a whole. If there are some styles that you don't really appreciate, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I appreciate that guys like Mike have at least made an attempt to see what all the fuss is about. To me, if you're a wrestling fan and you hear about a great match or great style that you've never seen, you're going to go out of your way to try to see it. If you don't do that, you're a casual fan, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that I always hoped the Internet would be filled with people who actually like a little variety and have some varied knowledge.

 

"If you don't/can't watch Puroresu then does that mean you're not a real fan? I find that to be a somewhat bigoted way of thinking."

 

If you don't enjoy the WWF then does that mean you're not a real fan? I find that to be a somewhat bigoted way of thinking.

[Guest Loss4Words]

"MrDanger pretty much expressed my own feelings. I thought that Loss4Words would have a reasonable and open-minded take on things like normal and he exposes himself as one of the biggest snobs on the board!"

 

All because I acknowledge that companies besides the WWF exist? Wow! Vince needs his shoes shined and you're 15 minutes late. You best be catching the next flight to Stamford.

 

"How sad is it to be elitist about wrestling?"

 

You tell me if you're not willing to give anything outside of your own universe a chance.

 

"I thought only wwf fans resorted to name-calling?"

 

Never said that. I just said that seems to be the typical thread nowadays.

 

"Loss4Words wasn't doing badly himself in that post was he?"

 

Oh Good Lord. Better pull this card on me because you don't have it in you to actually refute a specific point I made.

 

"What an ignorant, snobby, elitist, hypocritical, self-important idiot."

 

You think you know me, you think you know me ...

 

"I like watching puro and wwf but i dont think that i'm any better than any other fans because of it."

 

Neither do I. I think I'm better than people who can't back up what they say and take it personally when someone disagrees with them. If Brian Matheson and I did that, we'd hate each other.

 

"Try growing up yourself and get your head out from your backside."

 

Can I borrow a wrench? I hear Scott Hall has one.

[Guest Tim Cooke]

"I've seen matches that worked so much better with later viewings---however, if a match or a particular GENRE (in this case, the AJPW ME style) requires that, then it's a horribly flawed genre."

 

I don't see your point.  I have to watch a lot of matches again to see stuff that I either a- didn't like, b- didn't catch, or c- liked but am not sure if i should have liked it so much.  I have many flaws as I don't want to rewatch the Nakanishi v Maekawa 60 min draw from October because I liked it the first time but I fear after reading others views and having some new things brought to my attention that the match will suffer.  

 

But having to watch a genre of matches over and paying attention to them isn't a flaw to that genre.  I would say it is a flaw to the viewer.  It is one thing to watch once and not like but say, "Hey, the first viewing didn't do anything for me so I don't care to go out and watch anymore."  A little ignorant but not as bad as "I watched it once, didn't do anything for me, I don't feel like watching it again."

 

"Why do you say you were a rube because you PREFERRED a certain match?"

 

This isn't the best comparison but I can't think of any others.  Look at Sasuke.  He does most of the moves that Kawada does, minus the frequent chops.  Before I really got a good grasp on a lot of material in all genres of Japanese stuff, I thought that Sasuke was obviosuly better because he did all of Kawada's moves plus a lot more cool stuff.  What I didn't understand was that while Sasuke rules and I still love him, Kawada offered so much that I either didn't see at first or had to be told because at that point in time, it just wasn't getting through my head.

 

"Stop caring what others think.  Take a stand. Don't go along with what others think or you'll lose your ability to differentiate what is REALLY your opinion and what is simply others' opinions that you are just parroting."

 

At the end of the day after I watch something, it is MY decision on whether I like it or not.  But getting the necessary background info and others thoughts is very important.  Thing is, I have adopted many others opinions and made them part of what I think.  Is that a bad thing?  Of course not.  I don't credit myself with creating the idea or thought, but if it makes sense and makes me think about my wrestling experience on a deeper level, I am all for it.

 

I love talking about wrestling but like when I am watching TV, I need to be able to think and go deeper on subjects, instead of the standard, "So and so is better than so and so because I say so."

 

Tim

[Guest MrDanger]

"I'm just trying to make a point that I'm willing to give more than one company a chance because I realize that if you're truly a WRESTLING fan, then you will watch good wrestling, regardless of what banner looms in the background"

 

I disagree once again, if a hardcore Japanese fan only watches All Japan then does that not make a true wrestling fan? I see it as a personal taste, I'm not going to frown on anybody who doesn't watch Puroresu or Lucha.

 

 

"I guess that's fine with me if it works for them, but please tell me how those people have anything, anything at all, to add to a message board if they aren't willing to go in-depth with their perspective"

 

Why do they need to go in-depth about their opinions? They are adding something just by stating their opinions. I don't see why you have to explain your opinions continually, that's the whole beauty of them.

 

 

"No. We all have our starting points. It means that you're a WWF fan if all you watch is the WWF. If you're a wrestling fan, you would have watched WCW and gone to local indy shows too. There's a difference between liking one company and liking wrestling as a whole. If there are some styles that you don't really appreciate, you're certainly entitled to that opinion"

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. You think someone who only watches the WWF isn't a wrestling fan, I say they are.

 

"If you don't enjoy the WWF then does that mean you're not a real fan? I find that to be a somewhat bigoted way of thinking"

 

No that just means you're not a fan of the WWF, I'm not going to declare someone to not be a wrestling fan just because they don't like the WWF.

[Guest Loss4Words]

"I disagree once again, if a hardcore Japanese fan only watches All Japan then does that not make a true wrestling fan?"

 

No. It makes an All Japan fan. If you like Pepsi, you don't like soft drinks, you like Pepsi.

 

"I see it as a personal taste, I'm not going to frown on anybody who doesn't watch Puroresu or Lucha."

 

I'm not either, but I am going to frown on people who only watched the WWF when WCW was right there and I am going to frown on people that had access to ECW or territories or indy promotions and never did anything with it. I don't think those people are bad people, but I do think they are not wrestling fans. They are just supporters of a specific brand. The business is much, much bigger than one company.

 

"Why do they need to go in-depth about their opinions? They are adding something just by stating their opinions. I don't see why you have to explain your opinions continually, that's the whole beauty of them."

 

Why should anyone pay attention to anything you say if you don't give them a reason to? I have a problem with people trying to contribute to discussions who refuse to think things through. That's not directed at you, that's directed at anyone who is trying to start a discussion and then gets upset when someone disagrees with him. The whole point of a message board is to actually *discuss* wrestling. You can't discuss something without analyzing it first. It just bothers me that so many WWF folder guys get so upset when someone acknowledges that wrestling exists outside their own universe. That doesn't necessarily just mean overseas. There is a lot of wrestling in the US besides the WWF too.

 

"We'll have to agree to disagree. You think someone who only watches the WWF isn't a wrestling fan, I say they are."

 

I say they're WWF fans because wrestling fans will watch just about anything.

 

"No that just means you're not a fan of the WWF, I'm not going to declare someone to not be a wrestling fan just because they don't like the WWF."

 

I'm not either. But anytime a fan only enjoys one company, I consider them a fan of just that company and not of wrestling as a whole. That's all I'm saying.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<Quote  

If the WWF fans can't "get" it, the blame lies with the wrestlers, not with the fans.

 

 

Not necessarily.>>

 

 

Absolutely necessarily.

 

Any good writer, storyteller, or performer will tell you the same thing: If your material bombs in front of an audience, it is NEVER the audience's fault.

 

It is ALWAYS your fault.

 

 

<<It's totally possible the fans, in some part, are lazy, inattentive, incapable of deep, rational thought.  This is true about any fanbase.  You have those who understand, and those who are morons.>>

 

 

Ah, blanket insults to cover up what would appear to be deep social inadequacies.

 

<<Quote  

I've seen matches that worked so much better with later viewings---however, if a match or a particular GENRE (in this case, the AJPW ME style) requires that, then it's a horribly flawed genre.

 

 

OR...the fans are lazy, inattentive, incapable of...etc...I seem to be repeating myself.>>

 

 

Well, if you repeat the same lie often enough, some people MIGHT believe you.

 

 

<<How many times have you sat down and looked at a wrestling match, ANY wrestling match, move for move, and, every time someone does something in the match, asked yourself why it was being done and what effect that was having on you?  I'm curious, although it's a bet that's already hedged in my mind.>>

 

 

Ah, MORE blanket insults to cover up your social inadequacies?

 

Funny how it's the "WWF fans" who are painted as rude, isn't it?

 

 

<<Quote  

Why do you say you were a rube because you PREFERRED a certain match?

 

 

No, he's saying it because he hadn't seen a wide enough sample size.  He was probably judging from a small base of total matches.  I still feel a little incomplete with the things from All Japan and All Japan Women's I've seen, but it's something I'm rectifying.  I want to make sure what I'm seeing really is there by watching as much before and after as possible.  I'm sure Tim feels/felt the same way regarding what he's discussing.>>

 

 

If something doesn't work for you---once again---it is the fault of the PERFORMERS.

 

 

<<Quote  

A lot of people called "Thin Red Line" a great movie. I call it amongst the worst movie I've ever watched. Am I wrong?

 

 

Wrong, tasteless, something along those lines, yes.>>

 

 

No, it makes me someone who is willing to avoid being led in line over the cliff like a lemming.

 

Original thought isn't necessarily a BAD thing.

 

There's no need to fear it.

 

 

<<Quote  

But---how GOOD were they?

 

 

Uhh...did you read his quote at all?

 

"There are no consistently better matches than (what) AJPW  in terms of quality, substance, and depth."

 

Quality, quality, quality, quality...all right, YOU tell ME what that means.  Last I checked, it means 'measure of goodness.'  If nothing surpassed AJPW in that time frame in the sense of 'measure of goodness', I would have to say that the matches were probably really good.  Or am I thinking too much about it?

 

Quote  

If a match has psychology coming out of its pores and tons of stiff spots---but STILL isn't good---does that make the match any good?

 

 

Ummm...

 

Again, last I checked, the world may have suddenly turned on its head in the last .05 seconds since I thought about it...strong psychology is what tends to make a match good.>>

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Steamboat v Flair from WrestleWar '89 has worlds o' psychology.

 

It was still the worst match of their series.

 

 

<<And let's not get carried away on our assumptions, either.  "Psychology," the most overused and improperly-used term in all the Net wrestling world, is nothing more than asking yourself, "Why is this wrestler doing this?"  It isn't as though some matches have MORE of it than others - there is still a reason behind everything that's going on, whether the match is terrible or it's fanfuckingtastic.  

 

If Misawa resorts to the Tiger Driver '91 to beat Kawada in the 6/94 match, it's because Kawada won't stop coming unless he's knocked out, and Misawa is willing to risk injuring Kawada to hold on to his belts and continue his record title reign, and Misawa knows the TD 91 can get the job done.  If Sid puts Kevin Nash in a neck vise three minutes in, it's because his stamina is terrible and he has to do something to rest until he's able to let Nash up for something else.  There is no "more or less", no "dripping out of its pores" -- it isn't a quantitative question.  It's "good," "bad," and everything in between.>>

 

 

No, it's certain puro marks reading more into a match than is ACTUALLY there.

 

 

<<Just so we're all clear.

 

Quote  

I could care less what anybody says is great. jdw adores Misawa's work---I don't. jdw thinks the Destroyer is one of the best wokers in history---I don't.  It doesn't make me wrong. Doesn't make him wrong.

 

 

Well, it does make you wrong, actually...wrong, tasteless, something along tho---uhmm, well, I've said this too, haven't I?>>

 

 

No, again, it makes me a non-lemming.

 

I wish I could say the same for you, you condescending sheep.

 

 

<<Quote  

If somebody says a match that I DON'T like is really good, it won't suddenly make the match any good.

 

 

True...but being able to explain WHY you feel a match is or isn't good in the face of those who disagree is what separates those whose opinions are worth one's time from those who glibly say a match/worker/promotion/style is (or is not) something with no further explanation and expect everyone to give two shits.>>

 

 

You can explain until you're blue in the face why Kawada v Misawa is the best series of matches ever. You can give me a much data as you want.

 

I DID NOT LIKE THEM.

 

I won't change that to placate your ridiculously thin ego.

 

 

<<Quote  

People say Steamboat v Flair at WrestleWar '89 was the best match they ever had. 5 stars is a pretty univesal rating.

 

 

Ooooh, the "people say" argument.  Trying to establish an "us vs. them" tone, to make yourself the babyface in this, isn't exactly going to dig you out of the intellectual hole you're in.  Don't tell us what some match is or isn't.  EXPLAIN WHY IT IS OR IS NOT.  Is that really such an unheard-of thing?>>

 

 

I DID NOT LIKE IT.

 

I can say that the match dragged horribly (which it did), that the constant leg-based attack of Flair's got old quickly (which it did) or that the lack of actual doubt as to the outcome hurt (which it did)---but in the end, it all boils down to:

 

I DID NOT LIKE IT.

 

Unlike you, I can respect somebody else's opinion.

 

 

<<Just as a brief example of what I mean regarding this match.  Scott Keith calls Wrestlewar the best men's match he's ever seen.  All right, that's fine, he's more than welcome to his opinion.  But, something he's said about All Japan rather eludes me.  He's called the AJPW style 'boring' before, and that's OK; it's obvious some people don't latch onto it like others do.  

 

HOWEVER, in his explanation of why the Wrestlewar match is so great, he said "It's great to see two guys freely chop the crap out of each other and know they can trust the other one."  To which I say BIG FUCKING DEAL.>>

 

 

And he says the same about your comment, I'd imagine.

 

I don't give two craps about how "stiff" a match is since, no matter what, it's all pre-determined anyway.

 

 

<<Every mid-90's All Japan main event I've seen has had two, four, six guys beating the crap out of each other, and, although they all didn't get along, they all trusted each other and knew the others weren't going to intentionally injure them.  So when Keith says Wrestlewar is great, I have to wonder about his reasoning behind it.>>

 

 

BECAUSE HE LIKED IT BETTER.

 

I'm shocked you have such a hard time dealing with it.

 

You don't handle dissenting opinions well in your life, do you?

 

 

<<There's a reason why there are people whose opinions are treated with respect.  It's because they can explain, it's because they can see something there and appreciate a match on a different level than someone else.  And, if that person's evidence and points are standing on firm ground, it means that person is better off than the average yahoo.>>

 

 

And I care squat about ANYBODY'S opinion. The person who expresses it in depth still means SQUAT to me.

 

If you let others dictate YOUR opinion to you, then you are truly a sad person and I pity you.

 

 

 

<<They have something they really enjoy, rather than just being some goof on a message board who grouses about things but never gives any thought or direction to his comments aside from a Beavis-like, "This sucks.">>

 

 

And some people can handle debate without becoming total pricks.

 

Perhaps you lack those discussions due to your severe social deficiencies.

 

 

<<Quote  

It won't make their opinions more relevant than mine.

 

 

Actually, it will.>>

 

 

Do you have any idea how completely idiotic of a statement that is?

 

What are you, 15 years old?

 

 

<<Like I said, if someone can explain within reason why something excites them or bores them stiff, that's worthwhile.  If it's just a "this rules/this sucks" with little explanation, who's to know if it's verifiable?  Who's to know if it's trustworthy?>>

 

 

Watch it YOURSELF and decide.

 

Geez, is personal opinion THATforeign of a concept to you?

 

 

<<Quote  

And the match, flat-out, was not terribly good (yes, I have seen it, though not in the past few years). It was arguably the best of the NJ heavyweight matches, but the NJ heavyweights were rather bad.

 

 

Wrong again...I'd really like to know what it was Mutoh was doing that made him better from the 80's to 93 to make that Hashimoto match in '95 seem so "not terribly good.">>

 

 

Mutoh in the '80's-'93 was revolutionary. He was doing things in the ring that nobody else could do. That helped block out how lazy his work tended to be.

 

 

<<Well...hmm...Mutoh WAS showing up in the U.S. a lot more at that point...God knows we can't give him credit for carrying a far-over-the-hill Flair to something good and a dull-and-plodding Scott Norton to something good...nope, shouldn't do that at all.>>

 

 

When in the world did he carry Norton to anything good? If you mean at the 1/99 Tokyo Dome show, then your definition of "good" is already laughable

 

 

<<Quote  

Stop caring what others think.

 

 

I'm guessing this is one of those unintentionally funny moments in the thread.>>

 

 

Yes. that's EXACTLY it.

 

I'm the one who's really using everybody's opinion to defend my choices. Yup, that's me.

 

 

<<Quote  

People called Hashimoto a great worker back in the mid-90's. He wasn't.

 

 

And...this would be wrong!>>

 

 

Nope.

 

<<12/94 vs. Hase, the Mutoh match, much of the rest of the G1 '95, the match vs. Tenryu on 2/94, the Choshu from G1 96, vs. Takada at the Dome, vs. Liger in 2/94, the tag title runs with Junji freaking Hirata that were good...Hash has an impressive resume.>>

 

 

Ah, so your definition of good is EXACTLY what others say.

 

Got it.

 

 

<<Quote  

People called Misawa the best worker in the world. He wasn't.

 

 

<<Well, this is probably true, but considering your comments about Kawada/Kobashi/etc., I'll assume you'd say the same things about them...and you would be wrong again.>>

 

 

Ah, the lemming speaks.

 

 

<<The entirety of 1993 cemented the greatness of all three, and they went even further down the line; those matches have been discussed ad infinitum; I've done a good deal of it.>>

 

 

"Sniff" They were great. Really. Everybody thinks so.

 

Conform!

 

Conform!

 

Conform!

 

Amazing that so "smart" a fan would be so blind as to the whole "difference in tastes" thing.

 

 

<<The stretch from 4/95 to 12/96 cemented it for Taue, etc.>>

 

 

Wow, are you a cult member? Rev. Moon would have LOVED you.

 

 

<<Quote  

Take a stand. Don't go along with what others think or you'll lose your ability to differentiate what is REALLY your opinion and what is simply others' opinions that you are just parroting.

 

 

ORRRRRRRR...and stick with me on this one, because WHOO BOY, it's a STEEEE-RETCH:

 

It could just be...maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically, that Tim, myself, and others have...*drum roll* SEEN THE MATCHES AND SAW SOMETHING GREAT IN THEM THAT ALLOWED US TO FORMULATE OUR OWN OPINIONS. >>

 

 

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that maybe---just maybe---somebody saw those matches AND CAME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

 

All I hear from you is "I did't like them, but I REALLY wanted to. After a few viewings, I DID like them. Yay for me"

 

 

<<Whew.  Hoo boy.  OK, we're over that one...the wimmens and the chillins can come out of the bomb shelter; I think we all survived it.  Just...mull that one over for a while before replying to this with more of your lunacy...well, mull over this, and everything else, too, for that matter.>>

 

 

Again, amazing how fragile your ego and psyche are that I can drive you to such fanaticism by stating that Misawa's work isn't terribly good.

 

You bang your head during your temper tantrums?

 

 

<<Quote  

I find the quote system on the board to be less than intuitive.

 

 

Why am I tempted to remove the "the quote system on the board" bit and replace it with something entirely different?  Anyone? >>

 

 

Why?

 

Because you're an immature lemming, most likely.

                            -=Mike

 

...Nice, until you decide to not be nice.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<When I initially watch a (great) match, I watch it for enjoyment.  I let it take me to whereever it wants to go.  No strict analysis, no deep criticism.

 

When I watch it again (of course not on the same day), I see if it holds up, I enjoy it some more, notice a few things I had missed when I first saw it.

 

The third time usually comes furthered analysis, to see if there can be further enjoyment from it.  It is the 'little things' one catches that really make the match.  Then the match has depth, it has connections.  He did this move because of this.  The psychology is more prevelant.

 

The forth time is to take all those things into consideration and watch the match on 'another level', not simply for the instant enjoyment, but the enjoyment that comes along watching those connections, watching the little things mixed in with the big things.

 

Now this may be excessive, watching matches 5 times in order to judge whether or not it is a 'great' match, but the 'timeless' factor is very important.  Maybe not as important as the original viewing because thats when the match is the freshest but it is still a key component.  A 'good match' should remain good 10 years from now, it should remain good when you watch it for the 5th time, the 6th time.>>

 

 

I'll see a match a few times, but that is usually over a really long span of time. If it holds up, then it's a great match.

 

Steamboat v Flair from Clash VI is STILL the best match from the '80's that I've ever seen. It STILL holds up well, even with wrestling having undergone the changes it has.

 

On the other hand, the RVD v Lynn series have become progressively worse in my eyes.

 

I've not seen too many bad Liger matches, (well, outside of his "squash" phase) so I can say that he IS, undoubtedly, a great worker.

 

I've seen HBK v UT HITC a few times. It's STILL the best match of the '90's in my eyes (and I have quite a bit of NJPW, M_Pro, and AJPW from that era) in spite of the crap ending. It's still the best match (with a lot of psychology to boot) and, after this long, it won't likely change.

 

 

<<MikeSc:

At a certain point, your admitted your dislike to AJPW could have prejudiced your opinion. You WANTED to hate it so much and maybe, just maybe, you eventually convinced yourself that yes, you DON'T like it. >>

 

 

 

Actually, I disagree. Going in to the first AJPW stuff I saw (a tape that featured a match I REALLY wanted to see at the time: Gordy & Williams v Hansen & Spivey), I had high hopes.

 

Very high hopes.

 

Ad it didn't live up to them. It didn't come close. I read all these accounts about how great these matches were and how great Misawa was (I also had several of his tag matches on that tape (from 1991, I think)---but when I saw it, it didn't approach that.

 

For me, a match that UNDERWELMS me is the worst match possible. If a match is not good that I EXPECT to be not good (i.e anything from the WCW ME roster from about 1996 on), it's better than if a match is not good that I expect to be great.

 

Meanwhile, a match that EXCEEDS my expectations is a joy. For example, let's say the ironman match between Rock & HHH from Judgment Day 2000. I didn't go into the match expecting much of anything and, instead, got one very good match. An excellent 60 minute match that never seemed to drag (and, IMHO, equalled the Hart v Flair and Hart v Hart marathon matches from house shows that I also have).

 

If a match EXCEEDS what I expect, it will win me over.

 

If a match DISAPPOINTS, I won't give it many second chances.

 

 

<<- come on, wanting to be different for the sake of being different and willing yourself to hate a match and go against the majority is just as fuzzy as willing yourself to love a match.>>

 

 

No, it's not.

 

I like certain things. I feel that the people who DON'T like them are odd, but I don't hate them for their opinions.

 

When I say I think the Bulldogs v Harts feud was the best tag feud ever, I'm not kidding or trying to get a rise out of anybody. It's the truth. I LOVED their matches (even the few they had AFTER Kid's back injury which effecively killed the Bulldogs' ring work).

 

I say it because I truly believe it.

 

I DON'T like Misawa's work too much. It doesn't suck, but it seldom goes about the *** plateau in my rating scale. You see deep psychology and I see spotty selling and just a TON of elbows and clotheslines.

 

 

<<Psychology = easier to suspend disbelief = emotional involvement.>>

 

 

But you see the AJPW guys get dropped on their head and kick out, but elbows and clotheslines keep them down for pinfalls? That's hard for me to suspend dsbelief with.

 

I can more readily lose myself in a ladder spotfest than an AJPW match mainly because the ladder spotfest is COMPLETELY over-the-top.

 

To paraphrase somebody, people will more willingly believe the IMPOSSIBLE than the IMPROBABLE.

 

 

<<Emotional Involvment is what drives all art, no?  We read a book to be wrapped up in its characters and storyline.  Ditto with a movie.  Wrestling has the same components.  I find it hard to believe one can keep that involvement when things don't make sense.  Shawshank Redemption is widely considered a great film (I havent heard a single dislike of this movie), if Red just all of a sudden started wearing bellbottoms and had a fro we wouldnt believe it, its not his character, we lose the attachment.>>

 

 

Agree fully.

 

 

<<The same goes for wrestling.  When something that doesnt make sense in a wrestling match, that goes against the storyline and the characters involved, the tie is severed.>>

 

 

And I'm not defending crap matches.

 

But, going back to Shawn v UT HITC. I can go on and on about the psychology of the match (Shawn's terror of the UT and his seeming total inability to hurt him)---but few people seem to think that American matches HAVE any psychology.

 

I, personally, believe that people read into matches what they want. I honestly feel that a lot of the "psychology" that people see in matches is not something planned by the workers.

 

 

<<But I think I am preaching to the choir on this one. >>

 

 

I don't see AJPW matches as being very realistic. They're MORE realistic than WWF matches---but since BOTH are already "fake", I'd rather watch the bigger spectacle.

 

You have two choices--make a match VERY real---or make it completely over-the-top.

 

If you go for the middle, it doesn't work well. Heck, with me, if you go ultra-realistic, you lose me there, too (I still don't get Inoki's love of "shoot" style wrestling).

                    -=Mike

[Guest Tim Cooke]

"When I say I think the Bulldogs v Harts feud was the best tag feud ever, I'm not kidding or trying to get a rise out of anybody. It's the truth."

 

and

 

"I've seen HBK v UT HITC a few times. It's STILL the best match of the '90's in my eyes (and I have quite a bit of NJPW, M_Pro, and AJPW from that era) in spite of the crap ending. It's still the best match (with a lot of psychology to boot) and, after this long, it won't likely change."

 

Tells me all I need to know.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but blind statements like these don't make any sense.  I can name 2 US matches in 1997 that are MOTYC's over the HIAC match yet aren't even in the top 2 for MOTYC's worldwide.  Rey v Eddy and Austin v Hart are both as psychologically deep as the Michaels/Taker match plus have better movesets and better in ring work.  Move for move and based on in ring work, it isn't even a debate.  And that is without going to teh Orient or down South to our friendly neighbor of Mexico who kicked out their share of MOTYC for 1997.

 

Tim

[Guest zergdude]

"No, it's certain puro marks reading more into a match than is ACTUALLY there."

 

Yeah, it was just pure luck that they got all that shit right and making sense of the course of 8 years...

 

Give me a break.  You're one of those people who watched AJPW and said, "When's Kawada gonna pull a shooting star!  I can see this clothesline shit in America!"

 

And before you go on your "I'm not a lemming" rant and flame me again, feel free to know I won't be around to see it.  I have no desire to come back into this thread because it's already pretty apparent that you're one of those rage against popular thought people.

[Guest dawho5]

No, he's a "rage against any thought I don't agree with" person.  He is also a troll.  I'm sure that Breaking Point had this whole discussion in mind when he asked about Japanese audiences.  Or, maybe, he wanted answers about japanese audiences, not a puro vs. WWF argument.....

[Guest stretch plum]

"Original thought isn't necessarily a BAD thing."

 

No, but original thought for the sake of original thought is just as trite and weak a disposition as the opposite. That's the sense I get from reading your posts in these threads. A need to go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain with an at best superficial desire of knowledge of the product. You said yourself one of the main reasons for why you stopped following the Japanese scene was the fanbase IIRC. Sounds to me like you have some need to rebel here for whatever reason. Any 'insights' into where your thoughts are coming from we're either woefully shortsighted (much ado about elbows? please), ridiculously out of touch (psychology being some mystical quantitive entity that has no bearing on a wrestling match eh? ugh.) and has been laced with a confrontational attitude throughout. And you wonder why you've been getting punted in these "discussions".

 

"And I care squat about ANYBODY'S opinion."

 

Then why the hell are you posting in a fucking discussion forum in the first place? You know, a place to gather opinions? Do you just like to listen to yourself type? Funny how you chastise others for social inadequacies when your coming across as the most insecure person in these threads. You generalize an entire fanbase as lemming/sheep etc. when the only reason you seem to have an opinion on the matter in the first place is to go against a certain consensus. Yeah, your a fucking rebel alright. *rolls eyes*

 

Black sheep is more like it. BAAAAA.

[Guest Vyce]

This argument, without all the lengthy speech, is downright GameFAQs worthy.  

 

That brought a smile to my face.

[Guest J*ingus]

WWF Mark: "Boy, I sure do love chocolate ice cream."  

 

Puro Guys: "All the idiots around here love the flashiness of chocolate, while ignoring the depth and beauty in vanilla ice cream."  

 

WWF Mark: "I've had that vanilla stuff once, but it was stupid, it was a weird color and a different taste, I'll stick with the chocolate."  

 

Puro Guys: "You've never even had vanilla ice cream, have you?  Or if you have, you certainly didn't understand it.  It took me years to be able to appreciate the subtle brilliance in the different styles of vanilla."  

 

TheMikeSC: "Hey, I've had the vanilla plenty of times, and I never liked it."  

 

Puro Guys: "Then you're wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Seriously, have you ever even sat down and thought seriously about the ice cream?"  

 

TheMikeSC: "Well, that's great for elitist conformist moronic sheep like yourself, but I tasted the vanilla, it sucked, and I'm not going back again."  

 

WWF Mark: "What the hell are you guys talking about?"  

 

Puro Guys: "IGNORANT FOOL!"

 

TheMikeSC: "MINDLESS BOURGEOUIS!"

 

All Of The Above: "Grrrrr!  Hiss!  Spit!  Scratch!  Bite!"  (continuing on for a long, long time).

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"When I say I think the Bulldogs v Harts feud was the best tag feud ever, I'm not kidding or trying to get a rise out of anybody. It's the truth."

 

and

 

"I've seen HBK v UT HITC a few times. It's STILL the best match of the '90's in my eyes (and I have quite a bit of NJPW, M_Pro, and AJPW from that era) in spite of the crap ending. It's still the best match (with a lot of psychology to boot) and, after this long, it won't likely change."

 

Tells me all I need to know.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but blind statements like these don't make any sense.>>

 

 

What blind statement is there?

 

I said my opinion, point blank.

 

If you don't like it, fine.

 

 

<<I can name 2 US matches in 1997 that are MOTYC's over the HIAC match yet aren't even in the top 2 for MOTYC's worldwide.>>

 

 

IN YOUR EYES.

 

That part seems to be QUITE lost on you.

 

Just because YOU think that those matches are better does not, in fact, MAKE them better matches.

 

 

<<Rey v Eddy and Austin v Hart are both as psychologically deep as the Michaels/Taker match plus have better movesets and better in ring work.>>

 

 

And I disagree. Rey v Eddy was a collection of high spots that, while ver entertaining, was not a good.

 

And Hart v Austin was excellent in every regard---but I enjoyed HBK v UT HITC more.

 

Is it REALLY that hard for you to grasp?

 

Is the concept that some people think differently than you SUCH a foreign concept?

 

I pity you.

 

 

<<Move for move and based on in ring work, it isn't even a debate.  And that is without going to teh Orient or down South to our friendly neighbor of Mexico who kicked out their share of MOTYC for 1997.>>

 

 

Again---HBK v UT was the best of the 90's TO ME.

 

You think Misawa v Kawada is just really nifty and I do not.

 

I don't mock you for liking what I do not like.

                      -=Mike

 

...Of course, I find your immaturity comical.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<"Original thought isn't necessarily a BAD thing."

 

No, but original thought for the sake of original thought is just as trite and weak a disposition as the opposite.>>

 

 

I love this whole "He is just being disagreeable" line of thought.

 

Is the concept that sombody can come to a different conclusion to you so foreign to all of you?

 

I did not like Misawa's work. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it. Just because YOU think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.

 

 

<<That's the sense I get from reading your posts in these threads. A need to go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain with an at best superficial desire of knowledge of the product.>>

 

 

No, it's more annoyance at the lockstep lemmingism that exists so thoroughly on this board.

 

 

<<You said yourself one of the main reasons for why you stopped following the Japanese scene was the fanbase IIRC. Sounds to me like you have some need to rebel here for whatever reason. Any 'insights' into where your thoughts are coming from we're either woefully shortsighted (much ado about elbows? please)>>

 

 

 

That's what it IS TO ME.

 

Jesus, do I have to spell it out for you any more.

 

The...matches...don't...work...for...me.

 

At all.

 

If you were to praise NJPW's Jr. Heavy division up until about 1999 or so, I'd be with you on it.

 

If you were to praise M_Pro through 1997, I'd be right next to you all the way.

 

I don't like NJPW heavyweights all that much.

 

I don't like AJPW heavyweights all that much.

 

For that, I'm some rube, apparently.

 

I just love that all of you seem to look down so thoroughly on anybody who dares to speak against your beliefs.

 

It's a little sad.

 

 

<<, ridiculously out of touch (psychology being some mystical quantitive entity that has no bearing on a wrestling match eh? ugh.) and has been laced with a confrontational attitude throughout.>>

 

 

WTF?

 

I have been attacked. I didn't attack one friggin' person were until I was attacked.

 

Go back and re-read it.

 

I disagreed, but it was "Mike is a dickwad" and other such bilge that led to the confrontation here.

 

I have NO patience for immature little dorks who feel that a different opinion is something to be stomped out.

 

 

<<And you wonder why you've been getting punted in these "discussions". >>

 

 

Amazing that personal attacks are "punting".

 

And if I decided to really worry too much about what a bunch of people I'll never meet thought of me, I'd be locked up in an institution.

 

 

<<"And I care squat about ANYBODY'S opinion."

 

Then why the hell are you posting in a fucking discussion forum in the first place?>>

 

 

Where the heck is the discussion?

 

Somebody dares say that AJPW's style doesn't work for him and that just because you DON'T like that style doesn't make you a rube or uneducated, you get SLAMMED.

 

This isn't a "discussion forum". It's a glorifed circle jerk.

 

 

<<You know, a place to gather opinions? Do you just like to listen to yourself type? Funny how you chastise others for social inadequacies when your coming across as the most insecure person in these threads.>>

 

 

Yup, that's me.

 

 

<<You generalize an entire fanbase as lemming/sheep etc. when the only reason you seem to have an opinion on the matter in the first place is to go against a certain consensus. Yeah, your a fucking rebel alright. *rolls eyes*>>

 

 

He who uses profanity has no intellect.

 

I stated a DIFFERENT opinion. I said that fans who prefer the WWF style over the AJPW style CAN COME TO THAT CONCLUSION having seen both feds.

 

And I get attacked for it.

 

And I'm the troll for it.

 

Yeah. Right.

 

 

<<Black sheep is more like it. BAAAAA. >>

 

 

Can you at least be remotely original?

                            -=Mike

[Guest dawho5]

Well then, Vyce, you've been there recently.  I do enjoy when I can provide entertainment however.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<"No, it's certain puro marks reading more into a match than is ACTUALLY there."

 

Yeah, it was just pure luck that they got all that shit right and making sense of the course of 8 years...>>>

 

 

I don't see it, but I lack the desire to argue. It's no different than daring to tell an ECW fan that RVD v Lynn never had a single ***** match and it's a headache I no longer want. If it makes you feel whole to say it, fine.

 

 

<<Give me a break.  You're one of those people who watched AJPW and said, "When's Kawada gonna pull a shooting star!  I can see this clothesline shit in America!">>

 

 

Not quite.

 

I first watched AJPW because the Steiners v Gordy & Williams matches in WCW were, well, dull. I didn't like them. I had such high hopes for them, and they disappointed.

 

Everybody said that Gordy & Williams were great---and I liked the Steiners a lot---so I just assumed it was a conflict of styles or maybe WCW asked them to "dumb" down their attack (something they have been rumored to do in the past).

 

So I decided to see their Japanese work. I went with a match that was highly praised, their work with Hansen & Spivey. I was quite excited to see the match.

 

I STILL wasn't too impressed. I WANTED to like it, but I didn't. Ditto Kawada & Misawa v both Gordy & Williams and Hansen & Spivey.

 

Yet, I STILL gave it a chance. I STILL watched. How could all of these people be wrong, after all? So, I got some Misawa singles matches.

 

They didn't do a heck of a lot for me, either.

 

I watched quite a bit of AJPW and it never connected to me  nearly as well as NJPW's Jr Heavyweight division at the time.

 

So, I HAVE watched quite a bit of it and I didn't like it. The matches weren't as bad as bad American matches (or NJPW heavyweight matches which I never really liked), but classics they, sadly, were not.

 

 

<<And before you go on your "I'm not a lemming" rant and flame me again, feel free to know I won't be around to see it.  I have no desire to come back into this thread because it's already pretty apparent that you're one of those rage against popular thought people. >>

 

 

No, I'm somebody who thinks differently than you.

 

I've not once insulted anybody for thinking differently.

 

I HAVE ripped people who insulted ME for thinking differently.

                               -=Mike

[Guest TopSecretMan]

This is maybe the most pointless and irritating thread I've ever seen on the internet. Bravo!

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Heh, I've seen worse. You should have seen the "Rock/Austin" thread in the WWF forum...

 

 

:::: hangs head in shame ::::

[Guest Jubuki]

From Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses"

 

You guess what 'literary art,' 'romantic fiction,' 'Deerslayer,' and 'Fenimore Cooper' stand for.  Describes parts of the thread accurately.

 

"There are nineteen rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction -- some say twenty-two. In "Deerslayer," Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:

 

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the "Deerslayer" tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in air."

 

The rest is here...

 

Enjoy.  Glad I could make this relevant again.

[Guest Brian]

First time I've ever seen someone who didn't get Eddie/Rey.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

"It means that you're a WWF fan if all you watch is the WWF. If you're a wrestling fan, you would have watched WCW and gone to local indy shows too. There's a difference between liking one company and liking wrestling as a whole."

 

If all you watch is major league baseball while ignoring AAA, Japan, winter leagues, etc. then you are an MLB fan, not a baseball fan.

 

If you only watch then NHL and don't check out Europe, international tournaments, etc. then you are an NHL fan, not a hockey fan.

 

If you don't like NCAA ball, then you are an NBA fan, not a basketball fan.

 

If you only watch the major mens tournaments, then you are a PGA fan, not a golf fan.

 

If you only watch the NFL and don't watch NFL Europe, CFL, Arena, NCAA, and XFL (when it existed), then you are an NFL fan, not a football fan.

 

Now, if I do this with soccer, it will just get excessively long, since you can watch: Primere League, Serie A, MLS, Primeira, EUFA, COMNEBOL, Euro Cup, World Cup, and a host of other different soccer niches. If you don't follow them all, you are not a soccer fan, you are a "insert name here" fan.

 

 

After only 6 sports (I'm sure I could keep on going for a while) you see how tiresome that is, and the wrestling one is just as stupid.

[Guest NineSpiral]

my advice for all of these people who just don't seem to 'get' AJPW or whatever - start somewhere else. Don't jump right into 6/3/94 w/o understanding it, you'll be lost. Start w/ the excellent Misawa/Jumbo 6/8/90 (which is actually my favorite match of all time) or maybe Kobashi/Williams from 9/3/94 - these are great matches that are much easier to understand than Misawa/Kawada. And while it's hardly his best, a good intro to just what Kawada is all about are his matches against Sasaki - you can see him up against a guy who in some ways wrestles a more American style - might be easier for you to 'get' so you can move on to more King's Road type stuff. So if you don't get AJPW, don't give up! Trust me, developing the patience that this style of wrestling requires is TOTALLY worth the effort.

 

Jason