Loss

This is a great match, but that's beside the point. This match demonstrates the genius of Kawada to adapt perfectly to a UWFI style with some minor All Japan touches that put this over the top. He does his normal Kawada selling in the context of a UWFI match, which is just sublime. In the context of a global yearbook, this looks way better than I imagine it would look standalone -- because you see it next to Muto/Takada and can't help but think how those guys dropped the ball in their match. But it also shows how All Japan dropped the ball by not doing more matches like this. While Kawada wins, this is one of the most effective jobs I've ever seen of putting over a newcomer's style. All of wrestling could learn a lesson from how this match was worked.

JT Smith, the Dudleys, the Steiners, the Eliminators, Dreamer, Beulah, Cactus, Funk, Alfonso, Gordon, Austin, Woman & Sandman, Mikey, Konnan, Rey, Stevie, Public Enemy and Raven all make an appearance.

We get a little Austin/Sandman brawl before the match gets started. In the middle of all of this, Sandman and Konnan end up in a really bad looking chopfest. It alternates between a Sandman/Austin and Sandman/Konnan brawl. This is a clusterfuck, but it's a fun clusterfuck, and I like the Mikey underdog stuff.

Isn't it what we've all been doing for the past 15 or so years? John Yes, but not over 3 months. Let me retract that a little, because I think I'm acting like a jerk. I'm not feeling well, so that's part of it. So apologies if I was overly dismissive of the question being raised. I guess my problem with "Is ___ overrated?"/"How important is___?" type questions is that they're too objective, too isolated and it's too compartmentalized a way to discuss the things that are good and bad about wrestling. If we say here that offense is important, yet praise a wrestler later who doesn't have great offense but does a lot of other things well ... I don't know, it feels too boxed in. Wrestlers can be great for many reasons. Some great wrestlers are terrible at very specific things, and there's no precise answer to these questions that are being posed. There is something to be said for looking at the 'whole', and not the sum of the parts. Or at the very least, looking at the sum of the parts, but acknowledging that the 'whole' is generally more important. Wrestling does have intangibles, and we're talking about stuff that, while not art, is closer to art than it is to science. Yet the questions feel framed in a way that seem geared more toward finding a precise answer where none exists.

I don't think a wrestler needs a lot of moves. I think a wrestler needs a few moves that are over. Variety isn't what matters, as much as that the moves are executed well, used consistently (finisher, transition, set up, etc) and get a reaction. It's one piece in a puzzle, just like everything else.

Isn't it what we've all been doing for the past 15 or so years? John Yes, but not over 3 months.

This is why wrestlers "playing their role well" is important. Undersized wrestlers should be underdogs when facing larger opponents. No one wants to see Rey as a dominating power wrestler, and no one wants to see Big Show as an overmatched, sympathy-laden underdog. Sure, a lariat is going to hurt more from a stronger guy, but a well-worked match is one, to me, where the winner outwrestles the loser, not just one where he kicks the loser's ass. There are exceptions to every rule, including this one. But generally speaking, I have no problems with bigger guys losing to smaller guys if the work in the ring is good enough to put it in its proper perspective. On the subject of weight classes, since this was brought up, I think they're a good idea in general. I just have a problem with a cruiserweight division being treated like a midcard division. Ideally, you put just as much focus there as you do on the heavies, and the wrestlers in that division are big enough stars to headline a PPV, or you don't have the division at all. That would take years and a massive re-education effort to happen in this country in 2012, so I would rather see no weight classes at all. Of course it doesn't get ignored, but it's not the end-all be-all, and if the wrestlers involved are working their roles properly, there's nothing inherently wrong with either guy winning or either guy losing. I have zero issue with a smaller guy beating a bigger guy, as long as he's good enough that I was *convinced* through the work in the ring that it was deserved. Again, this is why skill and credibility are so tied together. There are cases where it seems like the wrestlers are doing everything "properly" in terms of selling, taking bumps, etc., but I don't consider that an example of a good big guy versus little guy match. The size difference shouldn't be ignored. It should be played up and made part of the general story of the match. Somewhat. Yes, most of the bigger matches do have a grudge to complement the ring work, and that's a big part of what makes wrestling fun to watch. Where I think we differ is that I'm taking from your points that you see these other things as attractions/entities on their own. Angles and promos happen to make fans watch and care about matches. Gimmicks exist to make wrestlers marketable, and ideally, if it's a good gimmick, maybe add heat to the match too. Matches that happen to make people care about angles and promos ... that's just backwards. Occasionally, you get something like the larynx crushing of Steamboat in '86 that was a fun match, but the angle was the takeaway. So sometimes, one match leads to another match. But it's wrestling. The things that take place on a good wrestling show that aren't in-ring action should be to generate interest in an upcoming match. Otherwise, they're a waste of time. I think most people can see the difference between a big guy who can't really do anything and a big guy who knows his stuff. Guys like Hogan, the Road Warriors and Goldberg who aren't great wrestlers in the traditional sense are pointed to as the rule sometimes that fans don't care about that stuff. That's incorrect. Those guys are the exception. If you looked at the 100 biggest names in wrestling history, there will be more wrestlers who are good in the ring than who are bad in the ring. And even Goldberg, Hogan and the Road Warriors weren't bad in the ring as much as they were limited. And people like late-era Andre and late-era Kobashi may have been smart enough to get by based on facial expressions, timing, name value and tricks they learned along the way, but neither of them would have gotten over working that way as newcomers. Look at Zeus for a big example of that. And both of them were pretty spry in their younger days when they made their name. Size adds to credibility. Size alone does not get anyone over. To say that is to ignore the other positives some of the bigger guys who have become stars have brought to the table. I'm not sure the matches you cited are good matches, but a match can serve more than one purpose. I would say "I am going to get my revenge by beating this guy to a pulp and then taking his title" is a pretty common theme. The bolded part is where we fundamentally disagree. The wrestling match is the entirety. Everything else that happens is life support for the match. If it's not, you're not watching good wrestling. The WWF has probably done it a few times, but how many times have you seen a successful show headlined by an interview? Meaning the interview was the selling point of the show and the show drew well based on that. Probably a few times with guys who again are exceptions, but it's not typically how wrestling is conducted. And training videos used to be a classic way to debut a madman. The bullshit is part of what makes watching wrestling fun, but I just don't think they should stray too far from the basics. You're citing some things about wrestling that I wouldn't call "good", even if one can get some enjoyment out of them in a campy, ironic way. If you look at wrestling's origins, until the past 30 years or so, it was typically presented as a sport first and the other things were secondary. Tempers flared because it was an aggressive sport, which is how the rivalries were created. Maybe you bring your wife to a match that's personally important to you and she ends up in the line of fire. Maybe you have a tag match coming up with your partner of many years, but you're having some problems getting along, and he betrays you because he feels you took actions in the match that were proof positive of the problems you've been having. The conflict originated from something match-related and will be resolved by something else match-related. Perhaps in between Point A (the inciting event) and Point C (the payoff) there will be a Point B where the wrestler who turned on his tag team partner explains himself. Building those things as attractions unto themselves is a fairly new phenomenon, and I think one of your issues is that you're using 80s WWF as a standard bearer for what a wrestling promotion should be. It worked at the time and I won't deny that, but it's not really within the framework of what we're talking about. I think historically, that differed depending on where the wrestling was taking place. It was a product of the local culture. Now that wrestling is national, it's a product of the national culture. Also, your argument doesn't apply globally, because not every Japanese match that's great has a clear face and clear heel. Many do, but it's not something that is always there. Anyway, I don't need it to be established within a wrestling mythology that stealing and beating up old ladies is wrong. It's inherent. The things that aren't inherent will differ depending on the location and target audience of the promotion. Some offenses meant more in 1987 WWF than 1997 WWF because of a shift in the promotion's target audience. Some things probably meant more to the 1978 Memphis audience than the 1978 WWWF audience. A good wrestling promotion is in tune with their target audience and when they do things for heat, they know their audience well enough to know what types of things will piss them off. They're both bad matches. Which is better or worse is probably a matter of personal tastes. There's no either/or at play here -- theoretically, a good match has elements of both or it's not good. Yes. Maybe not the DUD pile, but it won't be great. I know where you're going in some ways. Late 70s post-punk had a lot of bands that could write a hell of a song that couldn't play very well. Yet the songs were terrific. I just don't think the analogy works for wrestling, because wrestling is not a medium that lends itself well to new or different ideas. There's less room for expression, and the formulas are there because they work. Wrestle with some urgency. Play to the crowd. All the things you have pointed out that matter. I agree with you there.

I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but why are we challenging every single thing lately?

WCW abandoned it at the end of 1997. The WWF never had the rule.

Yes. He said they were his "so-called friends".

Hogan says the OJ line Bix mentioned again. Hogan calls Sting, Savage and Luger vultures. He was unbearable by this point.

They did a live Dungeon of Doom segment on Nitro! King Curtis is sitting somewhere in the arena -- I can't tell exactly where -- doing his "SULLIVAN!" routine before they segue to Gene interviewing Giant and Sullivan.

That's a really awesome story. Really awesome. I think you made the right choice. I would have picked the Psicosis mask too.

Last few minutes. And yeah, it's not terrible, just really boring. Diesel and Bret end up slugging it out to close out the PPV and build up Survivor Series. They barely move in the post-match brawl, so it looks pretty bad.

Before, it was 10 Syracuse thugs. Now it's 9 thugs. We get the famous bruised shot of Shawn Michaels before the match looking sad at having dropped the title. Shawn is wearing a blue Pelle Pelle leather jacket with red and yellow checkers on it, along with business casual clothes. How have I never noticed this before? Anyway, this needed to go on because it sums up the Douglas/Clique stuff so well -- terrible match with no heat with Douglas dropping the belt to Razor. This is the Clique stuff in full effect, and they don't seem to be cooperating well at all.

Arn does the hard sell for Havoc. He wants both Sting and Flair to be at their best, just like they were on Nitro. He mentions that he'll be rebuilding the Horsemen soon. Hmmm.

Kessler's Korner with the Bodies and Cornette. They aren't happy about Gibson being the referee. Cornette announces that he has a new drill sgt on the way in a few weeks -- Sgt. Rock.

Oh, also we see a Tommy Rich/Flash Flanagan match. Landell steals Rich's ring vest, distracting him long enough to lose a squash! Then we get a second promo of Landell in the vest. It's pretty obvious SMW is on its last legs by this point, just looking at the production of the show, but this is another really good Buddy promo.

Landell does another Tommy Rich impersonation.

Robert Gibson is the referee for an upcoming double chain match between the Bodies and Thugz. Smothers calls the Bodies the best team he's ever been in the ring with, and they're going to have to be at their best to win.

Brian Christopher is doing an interview when Bob Armstrong quickly interrupts him. Bullet Bob wants to know the status of condition #2, which was that Christopher be fined and suspended indefinitely. Jesse James Armstrong comes out to back his dad up, and Doug Gilbert evens the sides. Steve Armstrong is out to make it 3-on-3, then Billy Jack Haynes comes out for the USWA, and the brawl is on. Bob says this is senseless and all he wants is for everyone to agree to his four conditions, which he's carrying around in a notebook! Finally, Tracy Smothers makes a sneak attack on the USWA guys and Bullet Bob decides to get physical. He clearly had no choice in the matter. Clearly.

Lance Russell is back from his vacation! Bob Armstrong interrupts the show opening and says he's willing to end the USWA/SMW war under four conditions: (1) Lift the fine on Jesse James Armstrong. (2) Suspend Brian Christopher indefinitely for putting his hands on him the previous week. (3) Cory Maclin must apologize for any comments he's made about the Armstrong family. (4) Randy Hales must admit that he's a coward, he will leave wrestling and no one will ever see or hear from him again. Lance Russell is awesome at pointing out why all of these things are bad ideas.

The first Pulp Fiction! We see Sandman with Woman on a ladder, Steve Austin, Joey Styles announcing Konnan's debut, Taz with Lou Thesz at CAC (!), Bill Alfonso, Todd Gordon, Cactus Jack (who wants to be compared to Ray Stevens, the Midnight Express and the American Males), and Tommy Dreamer.

This is way better than I remembered. To this point, probably the best ECW match I've ever seen. There is the chair and table stuff, but it feels less forced than in some of the Juventud matches. It also fits Psicosis' working style better than Juventud's. Also, I just generally like Psicosis better as a worker than Juventud. This really works as a match that just happened to get out of control when tempers flared. I hate this stuff in AAA, but I don't mind it so much in ECW.

It was a really terrible match, and again, we would have had to cut something else in its place.