Steenalized

Let's see if the six man can steal the show. It has the potential

I was hoping they'd be a transition team to avoid having the Rhodes drop the titles to the Usos. I guess not

The theory I've seen is it'll be an update to the existing WWE app on Xbox 360. Looks like it, because I just checked for the WWE Network and the only thing that comes up is the old WWE app

Anyone know if it's on Xbox yet? I'll check tonight, but everyone here has discussed the PS. I'll mostly be using it on my laptop, I imagine, but not having to bother with an HDMI cable would be nice

Honestly, the only websites I check regularly for wrestling are here, WON, Voices of Wrestling, and my own blog, restholdwrestling.blogspot.com Shilling my own space aside, F4W/WON is the place I check most, with Voices coming in 2nd and having the benefit of being a non-pay wall site. PWPonderings is pretty good for US indy stuff too.

Is "Strangler" a job?

I've never heard any mention of a matching right, but equivalent deals between them and a different partner, say Spike, would probably default to Comcast/NBCU. Dave certainly thinks as much.

The man gave us a hell of a quote to shirk creating a unified theory on a topic.

In fairness, the boxing in Rocky is really, really bad if you want to see an emulated fight. They don't come close to landing on each other.

I'm partial to the Chicago crowds, whether big like All State or small like the Berwyn Eagle's Club. I wish they'd bring wrestling back to the UIC Pavilion too. Korauken is undeniably great. Visually, I love MSG with the short, small entrance, plus the crowd there helps a lot. Worst? Nassau has the reputation. I'd also put any half-filled baseball/football stadium up there too.

I have a few problems with this. Wrestling definitely has a lot in common with improv, particularly when wrestlers call the action in the ring. But they also lay things out before hand, which improv does not have save for the start. You can call it a performance aren't and I don't think that's an incorrect way to look at it, I just prefer to avoid the term because of pretensions attached to it. Your post would make more sense if wrestling were just a series of singular matches with no context across shows, feuds, and so on. That isn't how it goes. Two wrestlers might have little deeper meaning to their match and might wing it out there to fill time. More often, they have a goal in mind. To get someone over. To make someone look dangerous. To tell whatever story it is they want to tell. That can be in one match or across multiple matches with each building on the last. The stories don't start and end the second a bell rings. The promos and vignettes tie in or at least should tie in. Poorly booked wrestling might have no lasting consequences, but that's true of any poorly made story. You don't have to use the WWE forced-epicness or the Chikara story arc style of depth to make wrestling mean more than two guys in a ring fighting each other. As for the last part, are you saying that someone who is a technical wrestler automatically rates higher than someone who is not, even if that person is a great brawler? I think most wrestling is wrestling for the sake of wrestling. There's nothing particularly episodic about the World of Sport, lucha or 80s Joshi I've been watching lately even when there are feuds. I get what you're saying about the set-up and pay-off between angles, promos and matches, but for the most part I think that's an ideal which is rarely achieved. The vast majority of wrestling is filmed houseshows. I agree that calling it improv isn't completely analogous, but I still think the greater skill in wrestling is selling/acting than storytelling since most wrestlers go through the same routines when it comes to match build. Yes, a mat worker will always rate higher for me than a brawler. I think the actual skill of wrestling is both admirable and important. Lots of wrestling is for its own sake, I'll concede that. But I think that's also a remnant of wrestling being a sports product too. If you watch a boxing card or an MMA card, whether it's a huge Mayweather PPV or a local show, you get matches to fill time. Even if the main event is 100% of the draw, people will be pissed if that was all they got. Maybe Mayweather and some big UFCs are the exception where one person is such a huge draw compared to the rest, but generally speaking people want more than that. Wrestling follows that. Even if two wrestlers are out there with little to no story or purpose, they can still make a story in the match. They might be improving, but they will still have a clear end in sight. At the very least, they have to build to some finish. I'm not trying to undersell the importance of selling though, I think it's vital to a good match and a key to pacing things right. And that last part is interesting. I think having technical skill is a really nice plus. And if you're going to try to work that style, you better know what you're doing. But I'm a huge fan of brawling and I think there's just as much art to knowing how to pace yourself and control the flow of a match in a brawl as there is to working holds and locks and matwork. It's probably a less athletic feat, but if I wanted to watch great all-around athleticism for the sake of athleticism, I'd watch a decathlon.

I have a few problems with this. Wrestling definitely has a lot in common with improv, particularly when wrestlers call the action in the ring. But they also lay things out before hand, which improv does not have save for the start. You can call it a performance aren't and I don't think that's an incorrect way to look at it, I just prefer to avoid the term because of pretensions attached to it. Your post would make more sense if wrestling were just a series of singular matches with no context across shows, feuds, and so on. That isn't how it goes. Two wrestlers might have little deeper meaning to their match and might wing it out there to fill time. More often, they have a goal in mind. To get someone over. To make someone look dangerous. To tell whatever story it is they want to tell. That can be in one match or across multiple matches with each building on the last. The stories don't start and end the second a bell rings. The promos and vignettes tie in or at least should tie in. Poorly booked wrestling might have no lasting consequences, but that's true of any poorly made story. You don't have to use the WWE forced-epicness or the Chikara story arc style of depth to make wrestling mean more than two guys in a ring fighting each other. As for the last part, are you saying that someone who is a technical wrestler automatically rates higher than someone who is not, even if that person is a great brawler?

My friends and family generally know. At least, any of them that I talk to regularly know. My girlfriend is all too aware, but we just have an unspoken thing where I don't watch it (much) when she's around since she's not a fan. Actually, Total Divas helped with that, since she enjoys the show. I think she and my roommates are the only ones aware of just how into wrestling I am. I live with three others guys, one of them watches Raw with my every week and the PPVs and occasionally some PWG. They've jokingly redubbed our TV the "wrestling box." I don't go out of my way to tell people, but I make no efforts to hide it and will bring it up before long.

I doubt it's what he's referring to, but when I say I hate MMA wrestling, I don't mean UWFi/BattlArts. I'm not a fan of that style either, but it's more the faux-MMA of Davey Richards/Kyle O'Reilly that drives me nuts.

Question: when did the yelling your opponent's name while you rush at them or right before you land a suplex or slam or whatever start? I've noticed in a lot of US wrestling though I think ROH is the biggest example.

The Sriracha American Dragon one is pretty awesome. The rest are all the same

I actually liked that match a fair amount. His best work is definitely with Danielson IMO, but yeah, him whipping his arm to where it would barely have nicked an unmoved KENTA was bad. Make the other guy work for it, I suppose.

I haven't noticed Okada do it either. I recently watched the Morishima/KENTA GHC title change from January and it happens 2-3 times. Completely kills the mood for me.

I generally like the rainmaker counters. I usually like them a lot. But when of my biggest peeves is a guy who doesn't duck far enough and the thrower has to aim at a place that would never hit.

God forbid we miss a second of that

It usually doesn't hurt much. I often don't notice it. But it can mess with the timing of the match for obvious reasons. I presume that I don't miss much when it happens on Raw, but there is always the element of "but what DID happen?"

I get that. I thought it was ****3/4 on my own while avoiding all the message boards and twitter. I love that match, but I know that if I saw the hype first I'd probably be let down. Another good review by Joe, though. Thanks for always being so prompt with these.

That one was a huge deal to me as a kid and probably the best one I can think of for myself. Mankind scared me (it was the screeching) and Taker was one of my favorites. That turn was big.

Kinda surprised Laurinitis was a Morishima advocate. Didn't think he had the body to fall in that category

I think four matches on the latest NJPW iPPV had forearm or other strike exchanges. I don't think it's as big of a deal as some of you here think, but it is starting to get noticeable. They did vary them up a bit, but yeah, moving away from that spot would be a good call. It's nowhere as bad as ROH's love of fighting outside the ring though.