Matt D

I bet an 8 year old takes this stuff way more seriously and follows things from a kayfabe perspective way and is way more into "learned psychology" than more than most 30 year olds watching. It's also something that happens a lot. It's basically the midcard house style now. I would have NEVER given Kofi Kingston credit for it, but after reading his thread, and thinking about those matches, yeah, sure, absolutely. He just does it without it feeling as natural and impactful as others I'd actually give more credit to, like Cesaro (at least to me). If it's caviar, then they sell it by the pound.

This goes back to my "It's not wrestling that's changed; it's us." argument. Except for I think the circle keeps repeating itself.

I'm not sure that's true in 2016. There's an entire fanbase that doesn't simply swallow what the announcers are feeding them, the same one that got behind Daniel Bryan. Wrestlemania XXX was Bryan's crowning, but Cesaro was the prince on that show, the same swell of support rising him up, and this was while he was in the Real Americans having tag matches with the Rhodes' brothers. He was not positioned to be the person that people were supposed to get behind, but he was, to a certain section of the crowd, and it was almost entirely due to SOMETHING in his ringwork, and something that wasn't just the standard WWE Mass Appeal that they were trying to push. I think fan-driven narratives are more important in 2016 than ever. Cesaro got himself over through his ringwork alone to the point where they almost had to push him. Slightly different question: do you think it's not important, if you're on TV against the same sorts of opponents on TV week in and week out 2-3 times, plus house shows, to change things up in creative and interesting ways within your matches? If you don't do that, do you think the fans will notice or care, even if the announcers don't play it up one way or the other because they're barely focused on calling the match anyway. Hell, it's not like the live crowd has Michael Cole and JBL bickering in their ears about tangential stuff, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to think that people excited to go to a Smackdown taping on a Tuesday night won't make extra sure to watch the Raw that week closely, so that they can prime themselves for the show they're about to see. And likewise for the people going to Raw the next Monday when it comes to Smackdown. That's the live crowd that they're playing to. And that goes without asking the question of just who actually watches Superstars week in and week out and whether or not it makes sense to assume those people are paying a certain amount of attention, especially in an age of serialized television that builds season to season as opposed to "Crime of the Week" type shows. I think it could well be a reaction to the current audience base and the current style of TV and really shouldn't be dismissed so casually.

I think you're underplaying the "learned psychology" and rearranging of spots in Cesaro matches. He's also very good at teasing things and paying them off later. He often comes off not as a character so much as a force of nature, but in a productive way instead of a Brock way, in a way that really utilizes the WWE house style to the fullest as opposed to a way that actively breaks it.

Does it help or hurt Buddy Rose?

I feel like that's a rib on Michael Hayes

If I was going to put someone on for just one match it would be him. I love him so much in that IWE six-man.

His quality is arguably very relative, but it is refreshing.

I like you guys and all, but this thing is going to take me a week and a half to get through! (I mean, I will, but yeah)

Not to be overblown, but the idea that Angle is probably going rate kind of hurts.

I do. I'm probably slightly high on Fuerza relative to everyone else here and slightly lower on Morgan, but both of them are solidly above Park. Park's highs are very high and he's underrated in his early AAA trios/atomicos work when he was more agile, but my gut says that if you pick a random Park match, you've as much chance of getting a bad one. Plus he's hurt by having so much of his run in the indies over the last decade where I think he has his own personal heel ref to stooge. A little of that gets old very quickly.

Park just fell off my list. He was in my last five for a long time.

Navarro is someone who I just didn't feel like i had enough under my belt for. I did the run on Terry and that got him a good placement, but I didn't have time to fill in the gaps on Navarro too. If I had til May, maybe. (he might still sneak in but it'd be lower than he should be, most probably)

Why are you people watching good wrestling? It messes up the gimmick.

I'm not reviewing any of these matches.

Check out the 9:04 mark guys: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4487r_the-brainbusters-vs-demolition_sport

He's my 23 but he DOES beat Mocho Cota so he's got that going for him.

You had Lance Storm at 17 and Billy Robinson at 101?

I suppose I could see a strictly "Great Match" argument, but I think the 90s matches we've had pop up with Casas really help his case there. I do think Casas' need for a "resurgence" in the 00s is overstated, especially in a direct comparison with Santo during the same period.

I liked the Valentine vs Ichiban match quite a bit. Babyface Greg was very interesting, just stoic and no-nonsense. He could have with that sort of badass tough guy persona in a number of territories. I would have liked to see him in mid-south with it, for instance. It didn't really make me miss the best of his heel work though.

Wish I could do it, but I just can't. He'd make a list of favorites though. If there's a best vs greatest distinction, he might even make the bottom of that. Right now, I just can't get him in.

Last chance for anyone to knock Virus down my list. He's stupidly high right now.

Do you have him over Rey?

A couple of weeks out from the end of this and I just don't see the argument for Santo being better than either Casas or Satanico. I'm not even sure if I understand it (Will's autograph notwithstanding). One thing I'd be curious would be if anyone who's relatively new to lucha, over the last few years, even if a lot has been seen, would put Santo other either of them. Santo's an awesome middle ground between grace and righteous violence. He portrays the image of fighting out of a Gory special, for instance, that struggle, better than anyone in wrestling history; it's a triumphant moment when he sits up and with very few wrestlers can you use the word "triumphant" with in a non-ironic way. I think he can garner sympathy extremely well, and do a lot of other things competently. He's in my top twenty, but I don't see him as close to either Satanico or Casas. I guess he's slightly more primal while they are both definitely more rounded, but it's not like they're not primal as well. Satanico is the best bad guy in wrestling history, just spewing over the top malevolent glee and Casas is a god damn trickster god. If Satanico is Mephistopheles, then Casas is either Puck or Old Stick depending on what era of his career you're looking at, and both of them are just awesome when the crowd is behind them. I don't think I'm going to have Santo over Rey, even. He's more dynamic but 2000s Rey has that same sort of connection with the crowd with so much more creativity in match layout and we have the footage to see that on a weekly basis. Like I said, still top 20, but sometimes I wonder if you sort of had to be there with Santo.

"People care about TNA" was probably not the message to take from that.