NintendoLogic

Do in-laws count? If so, Verne Gagne and Larry Zbyszko are worthy of consideration.

There's an inherent conflict between wrestling as simulated combat sport and wrestling as narrative entertainment. A wrestler shrugging off an injury to a body part or working over a limb for a few minutes before forgetting about it might be less compelling from a storytelling standpoint, but it's arguably more realistic. It's up to the viewer to decide which is more enjoyable. Personally, while I would never say that there's only one correct way to sell a limb injury, I do expect some kind of acknowledgment of a lengthy sustained assault on a body part. Part of the problem is the increasingly finisher-centric nature of wrestling. A lot of the time, it feels like anything that isn't a direct attempt to set up a finisher is just done to kill time.

I think that's more because Wyatt has no discernible goals or motivation, so it's hard to say what getting comeuppance would even consist of.

The Rock isn't an actual member of the Anoa'i family. He's presented as one because Peter Maivia and Afa and Sika's father were blood brothers, but that's not how biology works. EDIT: By "he," I meant Peter Maivia.

The F4W board appears to have completely turned on Seth Rollins. I checked the Payback thread over there, and there's a ton of posts saying in essence that he's a spot machine with no interest in selling or psychology. Apparently, having his injured leg worked over for an eternity at Wrestlemania and then showing up on Raw the next night with no apparent ill effects was the last straw.

Has there ever been another Catch-as-Catch-Can Match like the one between Malenko and Kidman at Souled Out?

I don't think it's so much that as the fact that the things he's great at, like timing and positioning, are a big deal to other wrestlers but aren't necessarily noticed by fans. Those things aren't going to make a match great by themselves, but their absence can cause a match to fall apart. That's why even if he doesn't have that many matches that are transcendently great, he has even fewer matches that are absolutely wretched.

I actually have Okada/Suzuki as the New Japan MOTY by a pretty good margin, but I agree it's not as good as Okada's matches with Tanahashi/Ishii/Marufuji the previous year. In fact, I kind of feel like the New Japan style as a whole has degenerated since Tanahashi was demoted as a tippy top guy in favor of the likes of Omega and Naito. There seems to be more emphasis on big spots for the sake of big spots and going long for the sake of going long.

Dave threw some vintage shade at Jinder "Traps Don't Lie" Mahal in the latest issue.

I hope it won't break your heart that I changed my pick for 2008.

I just found out what "seconds away, round X" means. I thought the ring announcer was letting the audience know that the beginning of the round was only seconds away, but he was actually instructing the ringside seconds to leave the ring. That's from boxing, right?

Except his dad is part of the WWE concussion lawsuit.

Added top two for every year going back to 1972.

I've done plenty of rewatching and reconsidering, and it's high time to update the top 100 list. Here's where it stands right now (new selections in bold)

Top two for each year? I like that. It gives a more complete picture than a single MOTY. Here are my selections starting with 1972. EDIT: deleted, redundant

ESPN did rip the NFL after the Seattle Screwjob. So they will go after a cash cow if doing otherwise would make them look completely ridiculous.

Dave on Twitter just now: "ESPN gets chance after chance to show balls but this will be another time they're showing castration tendencies."

This has to be the end of Be a STAR, right? Any organization that treats WWE as a credible anti-bullying partner will be torn to shreds.

There's an interesting quote in the latest Observer on this topic (in reference to Roode/Nakamura) If I can make what is probably an overly broad generalization, I'd say that older wrestling was about having spots that fit the story of the match while the modern style is more about coming up with big spots and working backwards to build the story around the spots.

I kind of wish the druids had come out and carried him to the back.

I have just witnessed the first seven-star match in wrestling history.

Well, Rikidozan/Kimura was kind of a big deal. Inoki vs. Strong Kobayashi and Jumbo vs. Rusher Kimura were important in the 70s, but there was an interpromotional aspect to both of them.

I've done a fair amount of tinkering to my list over the months, and I think it's different enough now from the original to warrant a new post. Here's what it looks like right now.

Is Cody even the second-best Rhodes?

My top three, in order, would be the submission match, Bret/Owen, and WM17 Rock/Austin. To look at it from a different angle, I decided to put together an all-time Wrestlemania card with one world title match, one secondary singles title match, one tag team title match, and one women's title match. Opening match-Daniel Bryan vs. HHH, WM30 Women's title-Trish Stratus vs. Mickie James, WM22 Tag titles-British Bulldogs vs. Dream Team, WM2 Secondary singles title-Randy Savage vs. Ricky Steamboat, WM3 Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin, WM13 World title-Eddie Guerrero vs. Kurt Angle, WM20 Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels, WM25 Main event-The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan, WM18 The world title match was the toughest call. I love the main body of Lesnar/Reigns, but the Rollins cash-in sours me on the whole match. As for worst match, Taker/Shane's interminable length puts it over the top. All the other terrible matches named at least had the decency to be over in less than 15 minutes. Taker/Shane was thirty fucking minutes long.