Matt D

My only real piece of advice is that you keep in mind your expectations for yourself, first and foremost, and don't weigh yourself too heavily against them. There's no right or wrong way to enjoy something. Maybe you feel that one way is purer or more direct than another, that it taps into the energy and meaning of something more, that there's more heart than head involved, and that's ok, but it's perfectly fine to go the other way as well. If you're enjoying a hobby, then you're doing it right. If that means getting drunk and screaming at heels, fine. If that means staying sober and putting a bag over your head and turning your back on what you feel to be an overpushed babyface, then you're being an ass, but that's probably fine too. If that means taking notes and writing essays later, that's fine too. So long as you aren't impeding anyone else's enjoyment in the moment, then the most important thing is that you enjoy yourself On a personal note, I do think you underestimate how your child growing into a toddler and beyond will affect your life in this regard, both in becoming something that eclipses any obsessiveness you put into wrestling and potentially your own Dylan (the younger) as someone who share in the wonder of it all with. The former has affected me far more than the latter, mind you. Final thought is this, you've seen a lot, very broadly, and your best of lists attest to that. I have places I can explore that are brand new to me, whether it be Continental or joshi or UK or when I took a year and watched a ton of Portland or what I've done with lucha. I'm not sure you have that many avenues left, but I'm sure you have a few, and maybe it makes sense for you to dive into one of those.

How do I watch Rush vs Matthews?

On the other hand, putting Ken Shamrock in DX could help this situation too.

"They need to get Shamrock into DX as he's the only guy in the company realistically ready to do a major money program with Austin and with Michaels out DX needs a singles headliner." Hell of a quote.

Les Kellett, based on my microscope note and OJ's British wrestling reviews. Someone remind me to do some Mike Jackson reviews so I can nominate him.

Your name is "ragemaster." You could take the Miz.

Why am I annoyed that they didn't do that on the first USA Smackdown? I have no horse in the race, no stake in WWE, but I am still annoyed.

I think the reasoning is that Watts especially badmouthed him and his toughness after leaving the territory on air but that could have been a hundred things.

I do wish we had one longish R+B vs Hart Foundation house show match. I think we have some shorter PTW or CV stuff but that's not the same.

If a gun was put to my head, I'd say Orndorff and not Orton, but it's all speculation, I think.

Halfway through now. I love that even though Rob and I couldn't look at wrestling more differently a lot of the times, there are things we both love, like the Demolition vs Brainbusters SNME match or the god damn Jam Slam. It's a travesty he couldn't get Mojo Rawley to do it though.

Only if he talks like Popeye while doing it.

I want mat wrestling but I want it all to be nostril based holds.

Shawn will be in the last quarter of my list. If Kurt is a wrestling moron, then Shawn is very canny, but often uses his skills to the detriment of a match (but the benefit of himself) or has grand ideas that he doesn't have the dramatic range to execute.

I have no idea what to do with Savage either. I can't see him cracking the top 20 though.

No. I wish I could. Thoroughly. But he's more dynamically fabulous than great. If he had a few more years doing this, then sure, but he wasn't in the 80s. But in WWF he's Brody on Ecstasy, a fulfillment of the promise that the Apter Mags and Meltzer gave us when they waxed poetic about Brody. He's not just better than what Brody was but he was better than what Brody was supposed to be, a technicolor barbarian, a Proto Barbaro Cavernario. Watch the match. Watch what he brings to it. Watch how he moves in between moments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ3W8PRGWDE Watch this and basically shut up. I can't even begin to oversell how great Nord was in this either. He's the most engaging WWF wrestler of this period, maybe? He's constant frenetic motion, just amazing energy. So fucking dynamic, so credible, even as he stooges and bumps harder than anyone in 91 except for Perfect and the Rockers, MAYBE.

Johnny Time involves New Math.

When it comes to CVs that Parv hasn't seen in 20 years, I trust him most when he's talking about Lord Alfred Hayes teaching Sherri etiquette.

They'd situate him well at 255 under a Mulkey or Barry O or someone who can fulfill their role well much closer to most of the time without actively harming matches.

I'm not saying my list is 100% about instincts and ideas, but it's probably about 85% about that (so long as, you know, I see proof in matches, which involves a wrestler executing them).

I don't disagree but I do think they need a bandaid this time and to rebuild from a place of strength, not weakness.

I think he is an effective tool for a smart wrestler to try to use, athletic, willing to work hard, good physical charisma, able to hit moves. He is very willful though and you aren't going to constrain his habits or terrible ideas about pro wrestling. So if you are masterful, he's a great tool, one of the greatest tools in decades. Good luck utilizing him well though.

He wouldn't make my 300.

I'd like to think that my essay on Buddy Rose in 1979 works, on some level, to fulfill that for him (from my perspective at least). Obviously it doesn't cover everything necessary and covers some extraneous elements but it hints at my feelings based on the footage. I'll be happy to write something about Bockwinkel (who to me, fits into an entirely different and more traditional category than Casas and Rose) and Casas at some point soon. My criteria is very different than other people's though, so it may not be entirely satisfying when it comes to what you're looking for.