ohtani's jacket

WOS Jim Breaks vs. Adrian Street (2/12/72) Jack Fallon vs. Tibor Szakacs (aired 4/19/72) Steve Veidor vs. Tony Charles (11/16/72) Les Kellett vs. Johnny Czeslaw (11/16/72) Clay Thomson vs. Reg Trood (12/30/72 TV) Jim Breaks vs Johnny Saint (3/14/73) Pete Roberts vs. Caswell Martin (4/4/73) Jim Breaks vs Johnny Saint (5/3/73) Jackie Pallo vs. Johnny Kwango (5/3/73) Alan Sarjeant vs. Clay Thomson (6/6/73) Alan Sarjeant vs. Eddie Capelli (12/13/73) Robby Baron vs. Peter Szacaks (3/14/74) Mick McManus vs. Tony St. Clair (3/14/74) Abe Ginsberg vs. Pete Curry (10/23/74) Alan Sarjeant vs. Mick McManus (11/20/74) Johnny Czeslaw vs. Romany Riley (12/4/74) Sid Cooper vs. Clive Myers (1/23/75) Tibor Szakacs vs. Prince Kumali (2/13/75) Steve Grey vs. John Naylor (4/10/75) Robby Baron vs. Alan Sarjeant (4/17/75) Steve Grey vs. Ken Joyce (7/31/75) Clive Myers vs. Steve Grey (10/8/75) Clive Myers vs. Steve Grey (11/20/75) Johnny Saint vs. Mick McManus (11/20/75) Kung Fu vs. Mick McManus (4/21/76) Steve Veidor vs. Gwyn Davies (5/26/76) Mark Rocco vs. Marty Jones (6/30/76) Terry Rudge vs. Marty Jones (11/30/76) Zoltan Boscik vs. Alan Sarjeant (12/29/76) Clive Myers vs. Alan Sarjeant (2/21/77) Steve Grey vs. Mick McManus (5/21/77) [Cup Final Day] Jim Breaks vs. Vic Faulkner (7/5/77) Kung Fu/Pete Roberts vs. Johnny Kincaid/Dave Bond (10/4/77) Clive Myers vs. Steve Grey (12/6/77) Tony St. Clair vs. Dave Bond (12/6/77) Mark Rocco vs. Marty Jones (7/26/78) Bobby Barnes vs. Steve Grey (7/26/78) Steve Grey vs. Mark Rocco (10/11/78) Jim Breaks vs. Young David (Davey Boy Smith) (12/3/79)

Kandori was a better worker than she was given credit for in the rspw days, but there's no way she was the main driver of that match.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome. Never, ever change. Always be Matt D. I actually don't know that much about Ozu outside of his films, but I have been to his grave so I guess that's something.

It's scary how much you know about the WWF.

I guess it got really mainstream by then, with the post-grunge scene, but in the mid-90's britpop, electro (including the absurdly named "French Touch") and trip hop were becoming the taste of the moment. Why didn't we get some lounge wrestling character in 97/98 ? It also makes the idea that "ECW was the Nirvana of wrestling" quite ridiculous on every level (I don't think this idea came up before the ECW DVD anyway, so it's really revisionnist history anyway). My recollection is that the Nirvana Unplugged album was a big deal at the end of 1994 and then Vitalogy was released a few weeks later. I remember Pearl Jam in March 1995 was the first major concert I went to. I guess my memories of it are more about touring than any major album releases after those two. Britpop and US alternative rock always existed side by side in NZ much like British and US TV did, but looking at the albums released that year it was a huge year for britpop.

OK, I will admit now that the Brock thing is confusing and doesn't make sense. It really does seem like they mistrust him. Kind of weird bringing back a guy you don't trust enough to put in a strong position. Mind you, I don't really care whether the WWE makes any money. Let's have some more matches -- like Brock/Triple H! I can't wait for Shawn's tearful pleas for Hunter not to face Lesnar.

I can just picture Mabel tweaking into a whole new era. AFAIR, grunge was still quite prevelant in 1995. I went to an all boys high school and that year literally every guy in my grade had long hair.

Two guys both claim to be the best in the World, and this obviously leads to an issue between the two. How, in theory, is that a bad idea? C'mon, they're not even the two best guys in their company. Look at how simple and effective Brock vs. Cena was. You don't need a huge amount of motivation in wrestling because the conflict is already inherent. Just cut some promos and do a wrestling angle. Punk can't act and Jericho can't cut serious promos. They'd have to be great promos to make this sort of bad writing work, but they're not. One of them had the WWE Championship. Obviously, we know that it wasn't positioned as the main match , but you really can't fault the theory behind "two guys say they're the best, one has the top belt, they want to fight each other". That's pretty solid as far as "wrestling angles" go. Was it executed perfectly, of course not, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that idea. That is a ROH level angle. Since when were ROH level angles good?

He had several during his feud with the Rock back in 01/02. Well, we are grading on the sliding scale of how well wrestlers can act. But I thought Punk has always been decent enough for his spot. Once again, I think it comes down to this material simply being a bad idea to write into a wrestling feud in the first place. "You are haunted by the personal demons of your immediate family!" isn't something that translates well in a storytelling medium which mostly involves one dude punching another dude. Definitely agree that it's not something that translates well to wrestling.

I'd say they're better promos than, oh, at least 95% of wrestlers in the business today. Punk can act and Jericho can cut serious promos, we've seen them do it before. I think the material is just defeating them here. This is the sort of stupid soap-opera Russo bullshit which has zero impact on the matches themselves. There's no way that "I am taunting you for you family's drug problems" can be properly expressed or articulated by two guys fighting in the ring. Everyone I've ever heard mention it in any way. It even got a Wrestlecrap induction. Most people considered everything Jake did in '96 to be pretty embarrassing. When has Jericho ever cut a good serious promo? I don't think he's capable of it with his delivery. Punk may have mastered the various facial expressions you're supposed to make in WWE, but I think it's a far cry to claim he can act.

What would they have done with Brock if he'd won that they can't do anyway? The loss to Cena will be a chink in Brock's armour that they can exploit down the road. The idea that Lesnar can't be interesting now is preposterous. Was Vader any less interesting after he lost to Ron Simmons?

Oh come on, Lesnar's not Goldberg. That's stupid. A heel that needs to be protected with victories is a shit heel.

They probably thought everybody thinks Brock should win so let's book the opposite, but that's still a reversal of conventional booking. How much effect it has depends on how Brock is used. If Brock becomes the dominant guy then Cena's return will be a bigger deal (presuming that he's going away.) It's all in how you present it.

Hum, what ? Doesn't make a lick of sense. Cena is leaving. Traditionnal wrestling booking : guy leaving because the heel destroyed him. Babyface comes back several months after and gets his revenge. It's easy, it's simple. Now, Brock has already been beaten. He's not that special anymore, I don't care what anybody says. If at least Lesnar had beaten up Cena after the win and the show ended with a bloody Lesnar triumphant, a foot on Cena's carcass, then I would agree the loss wouldn't matter than much. There Cena won, KOed Lesnar, cut his cute promo, Lesnar was nowhere to be seen. End of story. Now you have to *re-build* Brock ? Well, that is poor booking no matter how you twist it. Cena isn't a traditional babyface. He gets booed a lot. By having him do badass things and beat Brock he can come back stronger than if Brock had put him on the shelf. I bet he gets a better reaction when he returns than he would have if he'd jobbed. His cred got a major injection from this match and month long feud. It was an interesting reversal of conventional booking.

You'd think this was Starrcade '97 the way people are going on about it. Personally, I thought it made more sense to have Brock lose than job Cena out. If Cena is leaving for a few months, you can build Brock up and then have Cena return as the guy who beat him last time out.

Two guys both claim to be the best in the World, and this obviously leads to an issue between the two. How, in theory, is that a bad idea? C'mon, they're not even the two best guys in their company. Look at how simple and effective Brock vs. Cena was. You don't need a huge amount of motivation in wrestling because the conflict is already inherent. Just cut some promos and do a wrestling angle. Punk can't act and Jericho can't cut serious promos. They'd have to be great promos to make this sort of bad writing work, but they're not.

What's good about them?

I kind of have fond memories of this. My friends and I used to imitate and parody the Undertaker's speech all the time. If Robert Stack had spoken those lines I bet it would have been awesome.

This isn't exactly what you were talking about, but it was pretty unique --

None of those things are good ideas. That's the problem.

I think it would be awesome if wrestlers started talking like us after matches. "My use of negative space was superior!"

A trope you loathe isn't a trope anymore if we're going to play by the rules.

Chigusa was free to close GAEA any time she wanted. It was her company. Running one of these companies is no mean feat and she did it for a decade. Forget about the future of Joshi, nobody gets decent rookies anymore because there's less kids in Japan every year and no reason for them to be interested in pro-wrestling. A lot of the girls in the business now would've been weeded out before ever being accepted into a dojo twenty or thirty years ago. It's a credit to them if they go through the training and try to make a go at being a wrestler -- most kids today wouldn't want to go through that sort of training -- but whatever people saw in GAEA Girls was nothing compared to the old days.

My point was really that no style of professional wrestling makes sense. I don't see the point in breaking down tropes.

I don't think Tarantino and Russo belong in the same sentence, either. At least Tarantino likes cool shit.