I wrote about this in the tape discussion in response to one of the Terry Taylor v Adrian Street matches.

 

As one of the things that happens in this set is we are going to have the same match up multiple times and I'm not sure how we should handle that.

 

Phil wrote :

 

 

Terry Taylor vs. Adrian Street

 

For your Street singles, this isn't as good as the Houston loser leaves town, but comparable to the Fulton singles. We might have to think about how much Street we want on the sets, as I love it all. This had some great stuff including an awesome takedown into a leg assisted armbar. Taylor has nice punches

Than me:

 

The grapevining of the arm into a takedown was a HOLY SHIT spot. But this isn't as good as the looser leaves town match and shares alot of same spots (including the Terry Taylor molesting Miss Linda stuff).

 

We need to figure out how we're going to handle stuff like this where we have a touring match.

 

As this is less a series and more a touring match.

 

I think for the purpose of putting together a set, danger in showing too many variations of same match that you diminish them all. The more time you see a series of spots the more it lessens those spots.

 

Do we put on the best of a series or if a match up is good enough do we put it on every time it happens.

 

I have mixed feelings on this.

 

---The first time I saw a Jumbo v Billy Robinson match, I got caught up in all the great sequences.

 

The second time I saw a Jumbo v Billy Robinson match I realized that they used the same sequences in the same order in each falkl but just essentially changed the order of falls. Its been a while but I want to say the third fall in one version is moved into being the second in another.

 

I watch one version of the match up and I really like the matchup.

Watch two versions and struck by ways in which both matches are flawed.

 

Watch one: “hey these two guys match up really well.”

 

Watch two:” For two guys who match up well, these matches are kind of disappointing. I wonder if there is another match out there where they finally are able to put it all together”.

 

---I am a big fan of formula in wrestling. I’ve written before about loving Pepe Le Peu cartoons where you know exactly the sequence of things that is going to happen. Cat is going to get hit with white paint, skunk will mistake it for female skunk, unwanted advances, discovery that skunk is in fact cat, etc. The joy is in knowing what’s going to happen and anticipating the spots. First time you see Flair flop it isn’t anywhere near as cool as when you know its coming and wait for it.

 

 

---I like the Fujiwara v. Sayama series. They are different matches each time out with enough similar spots that the more times I see the more I get into the anticipation of those spots. On the other hand I have no idea as to the rationale behind how the voters on the Other Japan set ordered thse matches. Bu neither here nor there.

 

 

This all maybe needs to be dragged into meta Battle Plans formula (keep your arguments out of my match lists). This is going to happen alot (as we will be getting Tulsa and Houston versions of same matchups, and it probably is kind of thing that we can semi-play by ear. But needs to be raised.

I do think this is something that can be played by ear on some level. But its an argument worth keeping in mind.

 

Personally the more times I see MX v RNRXpress the more I enjoy signature interaction spots. But on the other hand we probably only want to put on the top matches between the two. A low end MX v RNR may be better than a high end Nightmare/Sting tag...but their may be reason to put the Nightmare/Sting one on instead.

One of the things I really liked about the Other Japan set was all the repeated matches. I think if the MX/Rock & Rolls match is better than a match with other teams, I'd still include the MX/R & Rs match. Really gives you a good idea of the feud.

 

I too like formula in wrestling though. I suggest watching the Flair/Taylor and Flair/Reed matches - both from the Superdome in '85 - back to back with this in mind. Both matches should be included and both include not only some of the same spots and counters, but the same full sequences. But I enjoy stuff like that, and the value there is in saying this is what Flair has to offer, who shines more in this formula -- Taylor or Reed? That's when the interesting comparisons start for me.

I am a firm believer that if one match is better than another match, it should be included.