Matt D

Never thought to ask but you rate Trish over Molly?

It's neutral to cover with a roll up. That's just to be expected by someone of his experience level. +1 would be showing creativity by shoving the ref to cause the DQ.

Oops, Parv needs to scratches off the +1 for Clever Adaptation in the Moment on BIGLAV.

Anyway, the issue is that they put together a Wrestlemania card barely worth the $10.

I still think this way of looking at things comes out with Mr Fuji vs. Chief Jay Strongbow as the best match of all time. And if that is the case, surely something has gone wrong. In terms of "efficency and effectiveness", I cannot really think of a match that touches it. I think this gets lost in the semantics and attempts at definition and explanation but 1.) Working Smart isn't the only thing I value when it comes to the GWE process 2.) What I value for the GWE process is not entirely what I enjoy in wrestling, though there's a lot of overlap. There is a difference between favorite and great. I acknowledge that, though usually if someone is your favorite then you find a lot of what they do great. I won't have anyone on my list that I'll sneer at, like how Parv said Low Ki on the podcast, but I'll have some wrestlers higher than wrestlers I enjoy more, because I think they are greater or better. They just happen to go against some of my preferences. We're trying to make the best lists we can. Getting OUT of GWE mode is going to take a few weeks I think. And 3.) I get that people might not believe this, but those of you who say "I enjoy what I enjoy because I enjoy it!"... That's not a radical thought. I think we're all in that boat. Have I found patterns in what I enjoy? Sure. Is it likely that if a match has certain qualities, I'll enjoy it more than ones that don't? Sure, but there are exceptions. Its not at all a science. I think there's a lot of value in trying to figure out why we like what we like, or why we think something is good, or not good, or what might have made it better in our eyes based on things within the realm of possible. That's the starting point for interacting with one another on matches and wrestlers. But it's not a case where I decided on a philosophical point of view first and then sought out matches second. I can understand why people might think that way, but it stemmed organically from me liking matches and not liking others and trying to figure out just why that was the case for both.

I saw Dusty vs Tank and the Lothario tag third fall. No major comments. Dusty was so great at working from underneath but it was interesting to me how the crowd seemed sort of reluctant to take the ride with him. Some of the brawling out on the floor was a lot of fun. I got a kick out of Tank's gear. He would have been a great 1991 WCW jobber. There was a lot to digest in the Lothario tag. I think what stood out the most was how well Lewin and Spoiler worked together in keeping the claw on Jose. It wasn't really southern tag distraction heat. It was more like a Texas Tornado Tag heat, where Lewin would just interfere freely but it was too late by the time the refs or Gomez could intervene. I wish the finish was a little better put together. They were doing a test of strength with a minute left. It didn't build the drama nearly as well as it could have. Lots to appreciate though. Every match with the Spoiler seems like a bit of luck.

They should turn Ziggler heel on Reigns tonight and have him be the first opponent for champion Reigns post-Mania. That'd do the trick.

I just follow OJ around the wrestling world three years behind.

I should see that Fuji match.

The arena crowd isn't the only crowd in 2016, especially for things like Superstars matches.

No one touched my last explanation. I understand that Harley Race pile drivers are distracting but I'm not going down that road again while that is stil there. I'd much prefer Johnny logic'ing Parv and Flair drinking together and talking about Shakespeare.

Imagine that match with Cole and JBL announcing.

If you told him that, he'd go "hey, that's a good thought. You're almost as smart as Conrad. Almost. But not as rich as him. Now come get a drink."

That's not at all true now.

It's something I think would be worth examining in a few different places, first being week to week in front of the same crowd in territories. I think Portland and Memphis aren't the best choices though because opponents shifted so often or there would be gimmick matches, plus we aren't complete in footage (we don't have the Portland Tuesday shows, for instance). WCW 90-92 is sort of interesting as you have so many TV matches with the same opponents. Something like lucha in Arena Mexico on a week to week basis is as well. I think you absolutely see this style of Learned Psychology in the Dragon Lee/Kamaitachi series from the last two years. but it'd take more effort to map.

I do think that people who have watched a lot of WWE TV over the last ten years or so would understand it immediately, but not everyone has.

It's explained in the long post above.

I think there's a difference between Sheamus/Christian/Rey/Matt Hardy/Bryan (not in that order) TV workers and Morrison/Kofi/Ziggler when it comes to "learned psychology" in spots. I might be overstating that though. One group comes off as more organic and natural to me and "believably creative" and meaningful to me than the other.

Great, you've turned Parv into Johnny.

I love the image of 97 Taker whispering gossip on, like, Sunny to Dave.

New to me, probably not to Khawk. I might try to watch it in eight hours of so.

For anyone on the fence, Dotdokins just posted two Larry matches, one vs Martel (and the video length is around 30 so who knows) and one vs Steve O that seems to go closer to 15.

He'd make my 300.

On paper, the results were all pretty much what a USA MARCH TO WRESTLEMANIA show should have. The people they needed to shine for the show were highlighted and won. But the execution of it left something to be desired at times.

This is a very weirdly put together card. Multiple superplex spots or teases. The spinning Clothesline as a big spot two matches in a row. Figure-fours in two matches.