anarchistxx

Hogan incredible in the ring seems like a silly willfully revisionist super-smark statement from 2016.

Still a huge drop though. He was admittedly ranked way too high in 2006, doesn't have anywhere near the body of work to justify finishing #14. Love his stuff on a personal level.

I can sort of accept Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho because for almost two decades they have been considered incredible in ring wrestlers by the majority of the internet wrestling community. I don't agree personally, and nor do many people here, but they either speak to people or people have been conditioned to accept them as wonderful workers. Whereas someone like Hogan has been pretty much accepted as a poor toaverage worker from all sides - even the praise tends to focus on his charisma and character and the way his big matches are structured. So it seems far more strange to see him so high. Just, you know, two of the most important aspects of being a great pro wrestler. Nothing big or anything. Possibly, but if you take that train of thought you end up taking drawing power and merchandise sales into consideration. He was mediocre in ring, and for all his charisma there are very few of his feuds, interviews and/or segments that are worth revisiting. His charisma often raised his big matches into something greater than the sum of their parts, true.

This isn't the 'Most Influential Wrestler Ever' list though. Elvis Presley redefined what a rock star could be but his albums don't stand up next to Revolver or Blue or Blood On The Tracks or Dark Side Of The Moon.

I can sort of accept Kurt Angle and Chris Jericho because for almost two decades they have been considered incredible in ring wrestlers by the majority of the internet wrestling community. I don't agree personally, and nor do many people here, but they either speak to people or people have been conditioned to accept them as wonderful workers. Whereas someone like Hogan has been pretty much accepted as a poor toaverage worker from all sides - even the praise tends to focus on his charisma and character and the way his big matches are structured. So it seems far more strange to see him so high.

Think I was the high vote for Hase in 2006 as well. Lots of charisma, lots of talent, lots of great matches. The Muta bloodbath was one of the first Puro matches I ever watched, absolutely blew me away despite my high expectations coming in because of its notoriety. Came for the blood and gore, left thinking it was a beautiful match in general, and the blade job wasn't wasted as it really added to the emotion and excitement. Played it again a few weeks ago and it still hold up. He is far too low. Hard to believe Hogan has actually managed to rise ten places since 2006, given all this footage that has apparently surfaced in the meantime.

Agree with all of this.

The best role for Kurt Angle for me was that brief run circa 2006 where he just started running through everyone in glorified squash matches. Almost playing the role Brock Lesnar does now, just suplexing the fuck out of everyone, full of intensity and sold as an unstoppable machine. Bloody, emotional, adrenaline fueled Kurt Angle at Summerslam 2001 is one of the best babyface performances of all time, also.

Not true. Kurt Angle gets far too much abuse, probably due to the unrealistically salivating praise he receives in most other corners of the IWC. Admittedly I have seen no more than 10 Kurt Angle matches since 2006, but before that he was fairly consistent in putting out good, exciting matches that were nonetheless significantly flawed. Undertaker on the other hand has been part of some of the worst matches and angles in company history. If you put Undertaker in a ten minute television match without any gimmicks or garbage, there is a good chance he will stink the place out. Angle is far more likely to have an intense, enjoyable sprint. Very versatile worker as well, meshed well with different types of opponent. Don't think Taker has ever had a match as tight and well worked as Angle vs Mysterio, Summerslam 2002. Still, El Generico made the top hundred and Chris Hero wasn't far off, so can't take it too seriously.

Undertaker over Toyota feels disappointing, even though she isn't exactly the most lauded Joshi worker anymore. I happen to love her style, so exciting to watch if you don't dissect it too much, very few matches have been as thrilling to me as Dream Rush or the 22/10/1994 match with Inoue. She has been involved in three of the greatest tag matches of all time. Roddy Piper beating her feels a bit of a stretch as well, but I haven't seen much of him outside his WWF work.

It had the opposite effect on me. It sapped my hope that the product would improve at all in the near future. I was hoping the lack of The Authority would give it some stimulus and excitement, but it is like watching the same boring show just with boring, disheartening authority stuff replaced by something just as dull and predictable, albeit less disheartening.

Really? It felt almost exactly the same to me. Maybe having Shane make the matches injects some kind of freshness or positivity...but in terms of the way segments are booked, the way promos are written and delivered, the presentation, how feuds play out, how matches are worked, the usual issues with very few workers feeling natural and believable, the lame comedy, the commentary tropes, the boring stuff to kill time...nothing has really changed. I know it can be hard to be fresh and interesting due to the nature of wrestling, but with all that money and talent behind them there is really no excuse for putting out the same dull shit year after year. So stale. When was the last time they attempted a big, ambitious, left field angle that got people talking? The only feud for fucking Wrestlemania that felt it had any thought or creativity put into it was Chris Jericho vs AJ Styles and the wrestlers pretty much booked that themselves. Give me a feud over a shampoo commercial or an extramarital affair or a stabbing in a bar or a hidden secret, or even some ridiculous necrophilia angle. Anything that feels remotely interesting and just isn't a lazy feud full of the usual tropes of random beatdowns, trading victories...give me some hate and anger and make it personal.

Does Wrestling Society X count? What a fantastic promotion. If they had a money mark behind them they would have become the #2 promotion in the US. At a time when TNA was trying hard to be WWE-lite, you have this promotion with a unique look, feel, fantastic atmosphere, good matches and most of all memorable characters and workers. The roster was pretty much perfect for what they were trying to achieve. All ten episodes are really fun.

Well, even with the fast forward button in heavy rotation that was tedious. So much filler. Such lack of creativity when booking. Three hours is simply too long for the type of show they put out and the repetitive nature of the product. Kevin Owens going twenty minutes in the main event doesn't interest me. I'm out. Feel like WWE has had three opportunities in the last decade to become an exciting, unmissable show again. The brief period after Randy Orton punted Stephanie when live crowds and the internet were both full of buzz. Then the period just after the CM Punk pipe bomb. And Daniel Bryan's title win and the Raw after that Wrestlemania where everything went right for them and it really felt like something special was happening. They didn't capitalize on any of that momentum. Orton was soon his old, mechanical self, just another guy and jobbing to HHH in one of the worst main events in memory. CM Punk lost his buzz quickly, they quickly forgot about the maverick, unsigned champion element that had people talking and just booked him like a regular champion. And Daniel Bryan was put into a worthless feud with Kane, while all the people who were over and exciting on that Raw never really went anywhere and the chaotic feel was quickly lost. You couldn't even call a lot of the output now actively bad - it is just so very, very boring. No creativity, no authenticity, it feels like the staid, dull, safe corporate product it is. WWE is lucky to have such a dedicated fanbase.

AJ Styles still needs a haircut. Looks horrendous. Up there with Survivor Series 2002 as the worst lid in company history.

I'm pretty much done with WWE again. They have no idea how to book anyone. Dean Ambrose opening the show and reeling off lame jokes is not only embarrassing to watch, but symptomatic with how out of touch the writers are. The jokes aren't funny, clever, they don't serve a purpose other than WWEs endless quest to promote every face as a fun loving, happy go lucky, amusing guy. Not only that, Dean Ambrose is meant to be a crazy, off the wall lunatic, not some dude who sits backstage writing bad stand up routines. It is arguable ehe shouldn't be hosting a talk show at all, however much they want to turn him into Roddy Piper. How about some originality in the booking - they have veered between booking him as Steve Austin, Mick Foley and now Roddy. The WWE must be up there for the worst purveyors of comedy in history, almost everything they try and write as funny translates as cringe. The only laughs are unintentional, or the workers doing something off the cuff. They should know with John Cena, Sheamus and whoever else, telling jokes and grinning is not going to make someone over. Quite the opposite, in fact. Going to plough through the rest of this since UK shows are usually fun, but fuck me what a terrible start. There also seems to be no explanation why Shane McMahon continues to be in charge. If they were going to get rid of The Authority it at least deserved a cathartic finality with them getting comeuppance, rather than just tossing it aside.

I agree with a lot of that post, but the obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that people begin to use it as an excuse for bad behavior. A friend of mine dates someone who treats her like shit, cheats, manipulates, uses, and because she has read books about autism she has self diagnosed him as suffering from mild aspergers and uses that to explain why she tolerates his awful behavior. You eventually end up at a point where nobody is willing to take personal responsibility for anything because they are under the belief they are suffering from some kind of mental illness. Everything from murder to rape to just plain unpleasant behavior is seen as merely a symptom of their illness and they are able to go on acting that way without ever believing that they personally have done anything wrong. I have ADD but I cannot use it as an excuse for not getting projects in on time at work, to use a more flippant example. Chris Benoit's brain was clearly fucked up by all accounts, but there are many other people who have been in that position and not murdered their wife and child. Mental illness may in part explain his behavior but it does not excuse it.

There is a really fun ten minute Undertaker vs JBL brawl on Smackdown sometime in 2005. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for their PPV matches which are some of the worst of all time (I believe one consists mainly of trading awful strikes and sitting in rest holds for what feels like eternity before the mandatory run in, screwy finish, and Bradshaw being chokeslammed through a fake limo roof). Michael Cole is the worst for his endless dreary entrances, "Can you feel the chills in the arena, the change in atmosphere for the phenom, the mystique of The Undertaker, the incredible aura as he limps down the ramp to stink the place out in another interminable thirty minute horrorshow".

This. I don't listen to music differently based on the crimes of the musician. I read books both by and about people who have been responsible for terrible things. I find entertainment in television programs about Pablo Escobar, one of the cruelest people who ever lived. I enjoy paintings composed by a man who murdered his wife. I suppose the biggest difference is that Chris Benoit's work is more personal - we are being asked to be invested in him as well as his art, unless we are able to completely separate the character from the man. I rarely watch his matches anymore, but then again I rarely watch any wrestling. He was still my favorite wrestler growing up and throughout most of my mega fandom. Wrestlemania XX is still the most cathartic moment experienced as a fan, it seemed to make everything worthwhile. Just because my castle was ultimately built on sand doesn't take away from what an architectural masterpiece and thing of beauty that chateau was while it was still standing. He made my list. Whether that it right, who can say. Humans are very good as suppressing bad thoughts on certain people. Chris Brown sells millions of records every year despite once public and violently beating a woman half to death. Doesn't stop people dancing to 'Loyal' at 2AM in a student club, for better or worse.

The exchange itself for anyone interested:

Yes, it can certainly be argued that the chops were goofy and overkill. It could also be argued that they were a memorable spectacle that escalated the match into an epic war. The debate, though, was whether they were lazy and stemmed from a lack of creativity in the same way as a WWE main event match from 2000/2001, where the workers trade punches for twenty minutes until the mandatory near falls and run ins. The two situations aren't comparable at all. Whatever the reason for the ridiculous chop exchange, it wasn't laziness or to kill time.

Fuck me, for the level of analysis this project has spawned this post might be the most airhead simplification I have ever read. My post outlined clearly why this particular chop exchange, in this particular contest, at this particular time, was a spot done for specific reasons, for escalation, to convey defiance and guts, to add a sense of epic exhaustion and whip the crowd into a frenzy. I am not saying it was brilliant, I am saying it had a purpose and was not done out of a lack of creativity or idleness. If you can't see the different between that exchange, and a WWE main event based around punch exchanges that have no rhyme or rhythm, serve little purpose except to kill time and are inherently lazy...well, there is zero point in having a discussion on the subject. I am not saying either viewpoint is correct, but saying this is a simple case of double standards is utterly reductionist, since the two examples are so vastly different. Kobashi/Sasaki is a match that builds, has varies sections, has bombs and moonsaults and suplexes character work and structure - the chop exchange is a small, memorable part of it. How can you possibly compare it to a situation where the strike exchanges are the entire match?

The spot clearly wasn't there because they were lazy or lacking in ideas. It was for escalation, to give the match something different and special, to try and outdo previous memorable NOAH and AJPW title matches when it seemed impossible to top them. It wasn't Steve Austin and Chris Jericho walking up and down the ramp trading chops for twenty minutes at No Way Out 2002 waiting for the run in, because at that point they had nothing else to bring to the table. It was a unique, stunning exchange that had people talking and got over how defiant both men were and how epic the battle was. It hadn't been done to that extent before. That was the point, not because they were sat backstage thinking about how to fill the time and decided "fuck it, we will just spend five minutes chopping each other". In the internal logic of the match/promotion it worked - they were springing up from head drops, so reacting with gutsy stoicism to dozens chops really wasn't too ridiculous. The merits of it can be debated, and indeed were talked about massively at the time. It could even be called a major turning point for people getting disillusioned with that style of wrestling and how far the likes of Kobashi had taken it. But saying it was lazy in the same way a match based around endless punches is lazy is missing the point, especially since the rest of the match is filled with cool stuff.

Kerry made my list almost entirely based on the fact that he was involved in two of my absolute favorite matches of all time.

You must not have watched much wrestling if the Kobashi/Sasaki chop exchange was the dumbest thing you have seen. In the context of the match it made sense - two aces staring each other out, seeing who would back down first, defiant, angry, showing guts and bravery, daring the other one to be the first to give in. The crowd went fucking mental for it. Sure, the spot was overkill, but in between the amount of convoluted, fake looking, clearly phony spots and sequences you see in matches, that wasn't anywhere close to being dumb. Not to mention the fact that it makes zero sense being brought up during the argument that Kobashi used too many moves and not enough punch exchanges and more minimal stuff.