NintendoLogic

You have to distinguish between "all-time great" and "greatest of all time," which is a much higher standard. None of the guys you mentioned are serious contenders for the latter. The closest would be Steamboat, and most everyone would put him at the next level down. With regard to Flair, I can certainly see the argument that having a style and persona that translates well in any era is just as impressive, if not more so, than changing with the times. It's a question without an obvious answer, and I wouldn't fault someone for seeing it that way.

If someone thinks touring NWA style is the best style, they'll most likely rate Flair as the GOAT by a wide margin. If someone thinks lucha is the best style, they'll probably rate someone like Negro Casas as the GOAT. If someone thinks junior wrestling is the best style, they'll probably rate Liger as the GOAT. Ranking wrestlers isn't exactly a scientific endeavor. When you get right down to it, most of it boils down to personal taste. I'm just laying my cards out on the table as to where my preferences lie. Also, I don't really know what you mean when you say that Funk and Jumbo reinvented themselves by getting older. Every wrestler gets older. Some of them manage to keep up, but most of them get left behind. And what about Eddy Guerrero, who got over huge everywhere he went and died before the age of 40? I wouldn't call him GOAT on that basis, but I wouldn't really argue against it either.

All Japan is the greatet style ever created and you can't say the same about touring NWA champ style? I thought Williams told me people like you don't exist. How many singers, actors, directors, writers or artists in general are eclectic? Not very many. Creative people generally draw from the same well every time. I really don't understand your versatility argument when you have such conservative views on wrestling. You seem to be misinterpreting what jdw and I have said. I never said that 90s All Japan is flawless or the only style worth watching. But yes, I do think it's the best. Anyway, the fact that versatility is so rare is precisely what makes it so extraordinary when someone demonstrates it. When guys are relatively equal in other respects, it's something that should be taken into account.

There are plenty of matches where targeted body part work is paid off. It doesn't always directly factor into the finish, but it does change the complexion of the match and become a recurring theme throughout. It doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, but it does happen.

I think WWE hiring Billy Gunn as a trainer for developmental is far more alarming.

I'd say that all spots like the 619 and the People's Elbow that require the opponent to be incapacitated for a ridiculous amount of time kind of suck, even though they don't really bother me in practice.

Dave has said that the available footage doesn't tell the whole story because you couldn't afford to dog it on TV in New Japan and Mid-South. He said he was at a house show match in Japan where Murdoch spent the whole match lying in a hold and then got up, yelled "Miller Time!," and hit the brainbuster to finish. Regardless of whether it's true or not, it doesn't affect my opinion of him any more than when people make similar arguments against Bret Hart or Jumbo or anyone else. Who cares what you do at minor shows if you bring it when it matters? Anyway, I'll check out the Kox match. I also think the DiBiase matches might be more up my alley.

This match is hilarious. There's a difference between working as a monster and giving your opponent absolutely nothing at all. This verged on being part of Vader's Roadkill Tour.

Since I've been roped into this, I guess I'll explain my viewpoint. I keep hearing about what a badass brawler Murdoch was, but most matches of his I've seen are dull technical snoozefests where he works his opponent's arm for what seems like an eternity. Yes, he has a good variety of holds, and he works them well. But if something isn't going to have some kind of payoff (and his arm work never does), it's not worth 20 minutes of my time. I'm thinking specifically of his matches against Butch Reed on 9/22/85 and Barry Windham on 7/11/87. Some other Murdoch matches of note: North/South vs. Inoki/Fujinami (12/5/84)-I liked this match the last time I watched it. North/South vs. Briscos (12/28/84)-Typical shitty heel-in-peril WWF tag match. vs. Brody (11/22/85)-This match is hilariously bad (mainly due to Brody, granted). I can't believe this made a Schneider comp. Was this really ever someone's idea of a high-end brawl? vs. Inoki (6/19/86)-I thought this was pretty decent. I'd say this is the best Murdoch match I've seen. If there are Murdoch matches I've overlooked that'll open my eyes to his greatness, feel free to steer me in the right direction.

I guess he shouldn't have gone after Foley's kids then.

Am I banned?

From the 9/3/12 Observer: I believe Summerslam did outdraw Wrestlemania in 1997.

The Technical Terry thing is overblown. I never got the sense that he was significantly more adept on the mat than Harley Race. It's become a Steve Austin-type deal where so many people talk about how underrated he was in that aspect that he's become overrated. Anyway, I've said in the past that in-ring greatness can be broken down into longevity, versatility, and peak performance. Terry certainly has the first two down. Where I think he comes up short is a relative dearth of all-time great matches compared to other GOAT candidates. Also, I thoroughly despise deathmatch/garbage wrestling, so his role in putting that style on the map is a significant black mark in my eyes. Oh, and since Murdoch came up, am I the only one who just can't get into him at all? Everything he does bores the shit out of me.

I hate it when Bret Hart fills out the opening minutes of his matches with arm work that goes nowhere. Also, if you think about it, it didn't really make sense for Misawa to do a regular Tiger Driver. Why not just do the TD91 right off the bat?

I think the biggest knock on Flair from a GOAT standpoint is lack of versatility. It's not that he never stepped outside the box at all, but he never reinvented himself like Funk or Jumbo did. You can cut the 90s All Japan guys a pass on that front since the style they worked is the greatest style ever created. You can't really say the same about touring NWA champ style. Also, I would submit that the Just Doing Stuff critique only really applies to long Flair matches. His shorter matches like Chi-Town Rumble tend to be tighter and more structured.

I thought Miz/Lawler was worked well, but it wasn't worked smart. Miz had no credibility as champion, and to most of the audience, Lawler was a 60-yaer-old announcer. So it made no sense to treat Lawler like an up-and-comer who was getting the rub just by being able to hang with the mighty Miz. But that was a problem with the booking and not the workers.

I won't dispute that the match worked in getting The Shield over huge. But I think you can distinguish between a match that's effective from a booking standpoint and one that holds up to repeated viewings. One thing I absolutely hate about WWE is heels who rely on women for their heat. For me, the most egregious example was when Ambrose got suplexed onto the ladder. His facial expressions were ridiculously cartoonish and over-the-top. I agree with Matt that he'd greatly benefit from turning it down a notch.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Phil's ratings. It's just that most people aren't as big fans of things like endless stalling and jaw-jacking with the crowd on the house mic, so it's something to keep in mind if you want to cite him as a match rating authority.

I'm not surprised that my take on the TLC six-man is a minority one. But I am somewhat surprised that I've come across literally no substantial criticism of the match. To me, this is as good evidence as any of the baleful legacy of ECW. Everyone seems to have forgotten what a wild brawl should look like.

It should be noted that Phil is rather liberal in his ratings with guys whose shtick he's a fan of. It seems like any match where Lawler plays hide-the-chain gets at least a Great rating.

You couldn't have missed my point more egregiously if you had tried. I'm pointing out that most right-wingers do, in fact, believe that most of their fellow citizens are lazy and entitled.

Gimmick matches in general tend to suck because they limit what the wrestlers can do and force them into various stock spots. With triple threat matches in particular, there's only two storylines you can really do. 90% of the time, it's "one guy gets taken out, the other two fight, the third guy comes back right when one of them gains the advantage, repeat until it's time to take it home." The other one is one guy getting double-teamed the whole match.

I seriously doubt a "significant portion" of the WWE audience are the types of people who agree with the idea that Americans are all fat, lazy, and entitled. "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing...I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Wouldn't the obvious solution be to have Rock beat Punk and Cena win the Rumble?

Triple threat matches suck and should be avoided under all circumstances.