Loss

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Talk about it here.

Does Ogawa/Goodridge from PRIDE go on a wrestling yearbook? Dave thinks it was a tremendous work. Goodridge insists it wasn't. Thoughts?

Of course it's worth having a discussion about. That's why I separated the talk of it into its own thread. Calling something an MOTYC is not even saying it's good. It implies it, sure. But really, all that it means is that it's one of the best matches of the year. There is nothing inherent in that statement about the quality of the match, other than that it's better than what's surrounding it. A disagreement with that is not saying "The match isn't great", it's saying "The match isn't one of the best of the year". Am I wrong? Maybe Punk/Henry is merely a good match. Fine. That means we have yet to see a great match this year. And we're in April. There are plenty of years where the best matches happen later in the year. Sometimes early on, what the best match is isn't the best match into summer and fall.

Maybe someone can explain this to me. Most people around here think Dave's "pro wrestling and MMA are the same business" point of view is wrong. So how can those who think it's wrong expect Brock to draw because of his MMA background? I'm willing to admit that this just may be me being out of touch, but if the WON didn't tell me Brock had been a success in UFC, I wouldn't know he was a success in UFC. He definitely didn't feel like an Austin/Rock type who I'd find even when I wasn't trying to watch wrestling. He got a big pop on Monday night, which I would have been like WWE and just assumed happened because he was a guy people remembered from his last run in WWE. So my question is: Do you really think the WWE/UFC crossover audience is significant? Do you think they're in competition? Do you think they're the same thing? I don't, and considering how much people jump on the pro wrestling/MMA comparisons, I'm surprised that so many do. I have complete ignorance of UFC's business model, and I know it's a bigger business now than it was 15 years ago, but Ken Shamrock was a big star in UFC before coming to the WWF, and it wasn't something that got him over right away. The difference between Shamrock and Lesnar is that Lesnar was also a pro wrestling headliner. So what am I missing? Is Lesnar a crossover star or a returning wrestling star? Which element is the stronger of the two?

Split off all the talk about standards into its own thread. Let's keep this thread limited to just 2012 MOTY pimping. If you want to go more broad in scope, please post in the other thread, or start your own to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about.

Well, somewhere along the way, the importance of having a great match became that it's important because people are entertained by watching great matches. At one point, it was important to have a great match because it was important to convince the audience of key booking points, make people look good and maintain credibility. It was needed for business. It's pretty known that I don't think what makes a match good or bad has changed, but I do think the thought process behind laying out matches, and what the value is in having a good match to the big picture has definitely changed. I don't think it's something that has its origins in Ric Flair, and this may just be carny nonsense, but Ole Anderson was fond of saying "Flair entertained the people tonight, but we convinced them" on Mid Atlantic shows where Flair was perceived to have stolen the show.

When I have a moment, I'll split off the "great match standards" talk on its own. It's an interesting topic and I think worth discussing. That way, this can just be about the best matches of 2012, not what it means to have one of the best matches in 2012.

The key point is that something doesn't have to "feel" like a MOTYC to be a MOTYC. It only has to be the one of the best matches of the year. Is Dylan hyping this as a MOTD contender? No. So what's the point? I understand his frustration, because if you're going to say it's not a MOTYC, it's up to you to name something you've seen this year that's better. How good Punk/Henry actually is misses the point. How good Punk/Henry is compared to everything else that has happened in 2012 so far is the point. The debate over whether a match has to be shooting for the stars in order for it to be great is an interesting one, but it's a different debate. This is just "best matches of 2012" -- not "Even though I can't point to a better 2012 TV match, this isn't the best because I only thought it was good." Not seeing it the way Dylan sees it is not the issue. Discussion of standards isn't really the point of this thread. Has there been a better WWE TV match this year or not? Yes or no? That's really it. I'm never one to shy away from a discussion of standards, but that wasn't the intent of this thread.

Bumping to request your thoughts on Tajiri/Gedo from 2/3/98: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPdNywB220M

As you go through '97, if you could make a note of anything that's yearbook-worthy with dates, I would be extremely grateful.

The point is that because there are more good matches now than there used to be, that makes the standards higher than they used to be. If Punk/Henry is run of the mill, that's awfully impressive.

I really liked the match. Not sure I would call it GREAT, but when a match that good is considered "standard fare", it shows how high the standards are for in-ring action in WWE compared to where they used to be. A match at the level of Punk/Henry that happened on Saturday Night's Main Event in the 80s would be praised and remembered fondly today.

There is nothing I disagree with in that post. It's not completely fixed. The fixed things to me are that the match generally makes sense in a way that works for the audience and the promotion and that the wrestling exchanges themselves are quality. That can be done in a solid, enjoyable way, or it can be done in a great way that really transcends just the intended audience or era. Those are the matches that are great matches. Apologies if I've hijacked this thread. I'm re-reading some stuff I've posted, and I can see how it caused some stir. It's silly to decide what wrestling is and put it in such a small box, because it comes in so many great forms. I've said as much before, so I'm not sure what I was thinking. Now ... hopefully this thread can be about something other than me.

Plenty. I've enjoyed tons of stuff from those. It's not a standard I've set. It's a standard I agree with. Anyone who has ever voted in a Match of the Year poll follows the same standard. I'm not the only person on the Internet who compares matches across styles, eras and promotions featuring vastly different types of wrestlers. In order to do that, doesn't everyone have to decide what they value in good wrestling and then try to apply it universally?

I realize you're trying to give me an out here, so I'll just take it and let that be that. There are exceptions to every rule. I'm laughing because I must give off quite the absolutist vibe, considering how often people try to get me with you-said-this-but-you-also-once-said-this stuff.

Well, I love Flair and consider him GOAT, but the George South match is more of a case against him than it is something that contributes to that. Flair's not that kind of guy. It's my least favorite thing about him. He's still great.

Start one.