Grimmas

Alex Shelley is the champion. They are running an angle where Shelley, Gulak, Busick and Tavik (a local guy) think the promotion is trash and Suave and Greed are standing up for the promotion. Josh Alexander just wants the title and is not picking sides. A real fun angle. They just ran Hero-Ciampa, so they do some "dream match" type stuff too. Tyson Dux is so under-rated and should be talked about more. Gulak and him had a awesome, albeit very short, match on the last show I was at. Watanabe is there a lot too! Another good thing is their focus on women. There is a women's match every show and once a year they run an all-women's show. Vanessa Kraven, Cherry Bomb, etc.. are all pretty decent. EDIT: If you are on the fence, go to youtube. Their youtube channel has a lot of free matches and a weekly tv show.

I'm glad to see Parv made it into that picture.

When did I say logic was the only criteria? Greatest wrestler ever, to me, comes down to who do I think is the best. Everyone is not going to be judged based on the same criteria, because not everybody is in the same position. Aja Kong, Rey Mysterio Jr and Bret Hart are all out there trying to accomplish different things in different roles. I will look at how great Aja is at being a monster, how great Rey is as an underdog, how great Bret is as a never give up technician. Aja can do things in the ring that if Rey did them, it would be idiotic and vice versa. Okay, so what is it that Flair does that doesn't fit his role? Don't you think someone with the level of hubris of Slick Rick would keep going for that move off the top? A. because it won him titles before and B. because -- even kayfabe wise -- he knows it gets a reaction and he's a showman who gets off on that. Care to point to anything specific? I mean I've used the same argument for Dory, his character was all about being ice cool and showing no emotion, so it makes sense that he seldom shows any. Emotion = loss of control = weakness. He was wrestler-as-master-tactician. Like I said everyone is not being judged on the same criteria. Sure using the top rope every match (even though it only worked a few times) might make sense because Ric Flair is that cocky, but does that mean I want to see it? That bugs me. Working the arm for 10 minutes and then working the leg for ten more and then winning with a roll up grabbing the tights is not my favourite thing. You can justify every flaw a wrestler has by working it into their character, that doesn't mean they don't have flaws. Bret Hart had a lot of lazy performances, but that doesn't mean I can claim that since he was the best he was saving all of his energy for bigger matches and coasting by against lesser opponents. Does working that into his character mean being lazy on non-ppv shows is not a flaw?

When did I say logic was the only criteria? Greatest wrestler ever, to me, comes down to who do I think is the best. Everyone is not going to be judged based on the same criteria, because not everybody is in the same position. Aja Kong, Rey Mysterio Jr and Bret Hart are all out there trying to accomplish different things in different roles. I will look at how great Aja is at being a monster, how great Rey is as an underdog, how great Bret is as a never give up technician. Aja can do things in the ring that if Rey did them, it would be idiotic and vice versa.

This analogy is off because wrestlers have more creative input into matches than actors do into the process of filmmaking. The analogy doesn't work, because you have guys like Hitchcock who say "actors are like cattle". Films don't rest solely on the performances of actors because it is and has always been "a director's medium". Wrestling matches are not "the road agent's medium" are they? There's no part of this analogy that works at all. And I'm loathe to come up with an alternative because I'm not sure that an analogy helps. Whatever analogy you want to use the fact of the matter is that the person with the most great matches is not the automatic greatest wrestler ever. Atmosphere, opponent, story, audience, time, placement on card, etc... all those go into a great match or a bad match. While a great wrestler can be great in a match and it still not be special. I don't see how counting great matches really proves anything.

I guess, maybe Triple H could be thinking this way? Either way, there is some weird shit going on.

Maybe NXT is Vince finally allowing real competition, but still owning it? There is a small part of me that thinks they are allowing NXT to be built up and start touring to be the main competition to the WWE. The brand split didn't work, but this might be the way to go now?

I prefer them, because I get very frustrated with Flair watching him. Flair does a lot of the things that piss me off about Angle and return-era Michaels, he wants to get his stuff in and keep everything active. Has that produced a LOT of great matches? Of course. Is it something I love? Nope. Hansen, Funk, Lawler, etc... all have flaws, but there flaws don't irritate me. I feel if Flair came around in the last decade or so he would had been shit. If Lawler, Funk, Hansen, etc.. came around during the last few decades I would had loved them. I guess it's a wrestler's philosophy difference? It's hard to explain. Not that I am hating on Flair, probably a top 5, going to be in top 10 or 15 easily.

Great match theory is akin to this actor was in a lot of great movies, so therefore he is the best. You can put in great performances but the circumstances and co-actors can stink. That is why I am against the great match theory, personally. For example, you can probably point to more great Triple H matches in 2000 than Regal. However, I would argue that Regal is the better wrestler.

Yes, co-signed. There was a Wrestling Culture where Will argued Lawler was better and Dylan argued Funk in great detail.

Everybody has flaws, Flair's flaws just bug me more than others. Bug isn't even the right word, since I'm considering him for a top 3 pick. I'm still under the philosophy that great matches and being a great wrestler aren't exactly one-to-one correlation. Great matches help Flair's case a lot and put him high. If he didn't have those he would be way down on my list, obviously. However, I value more what I see someone do in the ring, more than the quality of the overall match since there is more variables involved in that.

Discuss here.

I don't think anybody is going to put someone above Flair just to go against the grain. He won't be my number one, because he does a lot of things I dislike and doesn't work how I like. However, he will be very happy due to how many great matches he had. It's that simple.

Parv wanted a thread for this, so let's have at it. He's considered by a lot of people a slam dunk number 1 pick, but what do you think of Flair? Where will he rank for you?

Every now and then I consider someone else other than Flair as my #1 and then I see a promo, or a match or even just a little something from a match Flair does and back he goes to #1 - it s a total package game for me and Flair has everything. Still time for that to change though, but its going to take some doing. Flair can rank anywhere from 3-12 for me. Funk is above. Lawler is above. Hansen, Jumbo, Kawada, Santo, Satanico, Rey Jr, Misawa, Kobashi and Bockwinkel could all be higher. Might I ask why or is that too big a topic? We can open it up to a bigger topic, but I have a lot of issues with Flair. He gets that high based on the insane volume of great matches. I think he isn't very smart in the ring.

If I get a Dudleys-Briscoes feud I will be the happiest person ever!

Every now and then I consider someone else other than Flair as my #1 and then I see a promo, or a match or even just a little something from a match Flair does and back he goes to #1 - it s a total package game for me and Flair has everything. Still time for that to change though, but its going to take some doing. Flair can rank anywhere from 3-12 for me. Funk is above. Lawler is above. Hansen, Jumbo, Kawada, Santo, Satanico, Rey Jr, Misawa, Kobashi and Bockwinkel could all be higher.

Check out last week's Pro-Wrestling Super Show as Timbo, KrisZ and myself break down Larry's career!

19 is completely over-rated in my view. Brock-Angle is a good match, but not great. Michaels-Jericho is in the same boat. I like Austin-Rock and McMahon-Hogan a lot and the rest was alright I guess. Off the top of my head I would take 17, 23, 7 and 30 over it easily and maybe some more.

14 and 21 aren't top 10 material. They are good shows, but nothing too spectacular. 28 I don't even remember at this moment, so that doesn't seem like an all-time show. Looked it up and Punk-Jericho and Rock-Cena are alright to great moments and the rest of the show was either awful or just there. How is that better than 7?

Discuss here.

Discuss here.

Discuss here.

They haven't seen a modern movie then, since almost nothing is under 2 hours nowadays!

Parv and I have talked about the booking of AJPW in our All Japan Excite Series podcast. The elevation of guys was masterfully done.