cattle mutilation

Using that logic, if one "enjoys" American Pie more than Citizen Kane, then American Pie is a better film than Citizen Kane. Don't you see how flawed that logic is?

You've picked the wrong film. Both American Pie and Citizen Kane are definitive examples of their respective genres. Both are ***** films, AP is the perfect example of a gross-out teen comedy the same way CK is a flawless and influential political satire. So it could be argued that AP is a greater example of its genre than CK, and therefore a better film.

That's basically a huge cop out. There's a thing called objective analysis. Just as people analyze films, we analyze wrestling. If a film has giant holes in the plot, then it's not a good film, REGARDLESS of how much one enjoyed it. It's still a FLAWED film. There is a difference between LIKING something and that thing being GOOD.

Flawed matches can still be great matches, they can still be MOTYCs. A ****3/4 is a flawed match, it has a telling flaw that drops 1/4* off the final rating, this doesn't make it a terrible match though does it? If you wanna pick errors, flaws, inconsistencies or whatever then you could say that Austin/Bret isn't a ***** MOTY because Austin bladed on camera and a real pro wouldn't have done that.Just because a match is more intelligently worked doesn't mean its automatically greater than anything else. Look at Kojima's Fire Festival matches with Tanaka and Ohtani. The former was a simplistic heated, ultra dramatic bout which featured terrible selling from Tanaka. But it was BETTER than the Ohtani bout. Kojima/Ohtani was an incredibly cleverly worked match featuring layer upon layer of psychology and great selling from both guys, especially Ohtani. It wasn't better than the Tanaka bout though, it lacked the spark and the UNBELIEVABLE heat of the first match and whether you like it or not those are incredibly important factors if you want to sit down and analyse. Just because Ohtani's has and always will be a better and cleverer worker than Tanaka it doesn't mean EVERY match he wrestles is superior. The same applies to Bret and Shawn.

It was a ***** match plain and simple,

Oh no it was not.

Yes it was. Twas a ***** cage match, in the same way Speed is a ***** action movie. It simply fulfilled all the demands asked of it and more. What more could anyone ask?

Most HIAC matches are poor, so being the definitive one isn't exactly something to be proud of.

UT/Mankind *****HHH/Cactus ****1/2Armageddon ****HHH/Jericho ***1/2and the brawl atop the cell on Raw before KoTR 98 was some of the best ten minutes of wrestling TV I've ever seen.

You can't expect Ohtani or Bret level psychology from a match like this but then again UT/HBK/A Big Cage doesn't promise anything like that,

Did you just admit it was poor?

So all matches have to be overloaded with psychology to be great? The beauty of UT/HBK (like any great action movie) lies in its uncompromising simplicity. You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong type of match.

Enjoying it does not make it a good wrestling match.

Because a wrestlers ability to connect with the audience isn't important

I understand why Taker didn't sell shit, but does that make it any less crap? Not for me. Just because you can give me a good reason why he is no-selling all his opponents offense doesn't make it interesting that he is no-selling all his opponents offense. Oh, and the finish was really, really, really bad.

I thought it was really, really, really good. Paul Bearer had been teasing Kane's arrival since the summer so it would seem logical that he'd debut during a PPV main event to cost his brother a sure win over his most hated nemesis. The debut kick-started a hot feud which continued for most of '98, remember the awesome 'cahoots' stuff when the sibling rivallry crashed headlong into Austin/McMahon in the summer of that year? The finish alone created an instant main event star out of a long time no-hoper who's still going today. It was the only logical way Shawn could've won the match without making UT look like a pussy, and I have to say I thought it was great. And still do.

Aa Ray said, there is no way it's a great match. A good match? Maybe. A totally watchable half-hour? Yep. A MOTYC? I can't see how. I you look at the WWF in 97 alone, Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin was a million times better than this.

It WAS better, but not by the distance you're saying. It was a ***** match plain and simple, the definitive example of a HiaC match. I honestly think if you shoved UT and HBK into the cell fifty times that year they wouldn't have been able to top the Bad Blood effort. You can't expect Ohtani or Bret level psychology from a match like this but then again UT/HBK/A Big Cage doesn't promise anything like that, it screams: blood, brutality, bumps held together by a simple story which everyone can understand, and therefore enjoy. Maybe you've got your expectations too high or in the wrong place or something because I can't see how its anything less than awesome.

You see to me that's all down to perspective and very much open to interpretation - while you interpret 'wrestling ability' to mean one thing I interpret it to be another. It is my belief that everything that goes on in the ring whether it is physical contact between two wrestlers or verbal banter from one wrestler is still all part of a wrestler's 'ability'.

I agree. As technically proficiant (in terms of crisply executed moves and sequences) as a match may be if it doesn't excite and compell me enough to wish it'll never end then it really serves no purpose. Its just guys trading holds, nothing else, it falls flat on its face just like a sitcom with a hilarious script being performed by actors with no comic timing. A wrestler may well be a walking encyclopedia of holds but if he doesn't know how do use them properly to connect with the fans then all that knowledge is irrelevant. Look at the way Doug Williams' NOAH performances exposed the holes in his work which he manages to keep otherwise well hidden in ROH. Unless you're watching a manic Toryumon tag match, less is nearly ALWAYS more, just look at the gripping four minute headlock during Kobashi/Honda.

Truth is folk can critisize my fave's & dislike's all they want...cos I dont really give a shit ( I'm a pretty laid back person you see 

This isn't about favourites though, its who you think is the BEST based on what you've seen. Try being objective, if you prefer 'Dude Where's My Car?' to 'Citizen Kane' because it has more wanking references or were more excited as a child by Kwang than Bret Hart that doesn't necessarily mean they're better now does it?Anyway, here's mine based on those whose work I've seen enough of.....1. Dynamite Kid- its truly amazing the way his matches STILL hold up a full 20-25 years later. Unlike someone like Tom Zenk whose matches from 10 years ago fall flat on their arses today, Dynamite's performances bristled with such energy and contained just the right amount of insane bumping and uncompromising brutality (a nasty european uppercut out of nowhere gets you every time) that its impossible not to lose yourself in the excitement. You know a wrestlers great when two decades later you can look back and enjoy their work without having to contextualise what you're watching.And the rest in no particular order....Steve AustinBret HartMick FoleyChris BenoitMitsuharu MisawaKenta KobashiJushin LigerRic FlairSatoru Sayama(no room for Steamboat?!?!?)

There are fans of "traditional" wrestling across the world out there to be won over.  Why doesn't someone produce a product that has a chance of doing so?The FWA and co should be looking at not increasing the "sports entertainment fans" demographic which is tiny, but looking at winning back all those fans who lost interest in wrestling when it lost a huge chunk of what made it great during the transition to the product we see today.

Maybe because the risk is too great. I haven't watched enough FWA so using ROH as an example, I'd say the promotors would risk alienating the smark audience if they attempted a transition back to something resembling the traditional style. On the face of it that might not seem a bad thing: kick out the unappreciative smarks (I'm generalising here) and welcome back the traditionalists who embraced wrestling before sports entertainment exerted its influence. The problem is that there's no indication that the audience, say WCW fans would return at all. Maybe there is a lack of middle ground caused by the love/hate attitutes towards wrestlings polar visions. I'm sure the current ROH fanbase would react strongly in their disgust at a change in philosophy as a new direction would almost certainly mean RF would have to book maybe older (not old guys, just performers with more experience) wrestlers with different physiques, and history shows that the ROH fans can be rather harsh on the less spectacular variety of workers that pass through their rings. Look at BJ Whitmer, he blows a spot against CM Punk and the fans piss on him until he's so rattled that it seriously affects his performance and the quality of the match. And why? Assumingly because of his physical make-up they know he can't provide them with Sky Twister Presses and 720 splashes in the way that Red or the SAT or other guys wrestling a sports entertainment style would be able to. Because of shortening attention spans most of the ROH fanbase can go home happy if they see a wacky or dangerous spot and get the chance to pop for those spots and chant 'Holy Shit!' as opposed to concentrating on psychology. Take Styles v London from Night Of Grudges for example, that match featured some really impressive selling of the left knee by Styles (really!). Late in the after much struggling to cope with the injured wheel by AJ (I actually thought he did a better job selling the injury than Kawada in his Triple Crown match with Ohtani), London applied a figure four and instead of going crazy expecting Styles to tap the fans reacted with a few 'WOOO's' and not much else. Because they saw the submission as an unspectacular and antiquated 80's finisher of the long washed up relic Ric Flair. Symbolic of the fact that wrestling held little or no appeal for them before the days of 'crash TV'. The 'lost' audience that the promotors would hope to attract to their traditional approach would maybe be so alienated by sports entertainment that they simply wouldn't be interested anymore. The Attitude Era changed the perception of wrestling and lets face it, WWE IS the perception of wrestling to 99% of people. What was once seen as family orientated entertainment is now percieved as ....erm, family orien... , well forgetting the McMahon's you know what I mean: sleaze, lesbains, dick jokes, necrophilia, obsession with high-risks, soulless matches/feuds etc. I think the general perception of wrestling has changed so much that en masse, these long lost devotees of the grap game simply would not be interested anymore. Leaving a transition period where any fed attempting to revert to the glory days of yore would simply die as a result of alienating the smarks and failing to win over those who's tastes have moved on.

They don't get paid to be judged on forums but to entertain people on the night.

A wrestler doesn't necessarily have to work his ass of to entertain the fans though. At a house show all Rikishi has to do to send the fan's home happy is wiggle his backside and dance with some kids, entertaining the fans far more than a **** Benoit match in which The Crippler literally worked his ass off. And in that respect its right that wrestlers performances should be judged in the cold light of day when the fans offering critique are looking for something more fulfilling than a few hours entertainment before hitting the town.

I own my own business, I dont need the money, I wanted to Wrestle infront of as many people as i could, i trained to do so, worked hard, got in shape (well sort of ) and was given the chance to wrestle for the FWA.I did and the slagging i got was unbearable. Dont get me wrong i welcomed any criticsm with open arms good or bad, but comments like "Bishop didnt deserve to be in the same building as the FWA guys" and "Bishop was the drizzling sh**s" cut deep.Left me thinking "is this a business I REALLY want to be part of?"The answer was yes, but not as an active worker.

How would YOU rate those performances?As heavy handed and as those criticisms were, and as much as it must have hurt reading them, on reflection were they correct?If you want to wrestle why not stick at it (it takes the best YEARS to reach any sort of proficiancy) instead of becoming a referee?

Imagine you are a Sales person and one of your clients or customers came on a public forum like this dedicated to sales people, where he knew clients and prospectiv employers read the posts, and made comments like "He cant sell, he doesnt know how to", all due to one bad incident.

But if the sales person continually made the same mistake over a number of years that criticism would be perfectly valid.I find that when wrestlers bash the internet in response to comments they've read they don't do it in the form of a carefully constructed argument, but do so in a venom spewing diatribe with arguments no more constructive than "...because I'm a wrestler, you're not" I wish they'd put some thought into things like this instead of lashing out at the fans who LOVE wrestling enough to discuss it in depth.I think sometimes people get confused between 'criticism' and 'critique'. There's nothing wrong with analysing a match in minute detail and offering pros and cons because it shows that you care enough to do so. That's one of the reasons I love wrestling.

but since he was pushed quickly and wasn't a big fan of pro-wrestling and doesn't take the business as personal as Bret, people have a tendency to hold it against him.

I don't think too many people hold that against him to be honest. If you're good (and nobody is saying Angle isn't good) enough to justify your push that's all that matters. Angle learned quickly and earned his spot. Same with Owen Hart. He got the push from day one when he started out, as he was a very good worker basically from the start.

Yeah, but I'm sure as you know as a fan your knowledge and appreciation of the finer points and subtleties of the sport grows the longer you expose yourself to it. Bret was literally immersed in wrestling from birth, and had been wrestling for nearly 20 years, and had been in the WWF for five of them before he became THE Bret Hart we all know and love and started delivering ***** main event matches. Angle has been around for a much shorter period and apparently didn't watch any form of pro wrestling until 1998, so its at least understandable that he has yet to produce the sort of depth in his matches that Bret routinelly delivered. Even before Bret started getting into the ring, he'd had an early childhood which because of his family consisted of nothing but wrestling. I certainly think that as good as Angle is, Bret is better than him in mosts respects, its only that the Hitman was in a more advantageous position to succeed than Kurt was.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.I agree with the points you're making, but what do they have to do with my quote ?

Mmm, I lost the point a bit there didn't I?I think what I was meaning to say is related to Owen and Angle. Although both were good from the start Angle came from an almost completely different world than Owen. Owen's world WAS pro-wrestling so it stands to reason that he would acquire the skills easily because of his family. It must have been far more difficult for Angle who basically had to learn from scratch when he started out and even on the job during 98-2001. My point is that although you say 'Owen was a very good worker basically from the start' he was always going to be because of the obvious advantage he had, where as Kurt's progress is maybe even more of an achievement considering his lack of any previous knowledge or experience.Hope that makes sense this time!

Cattle Mutilation,re: your point about Angle not even having seen pro wrestling before 1998. He worked an angle of sorts in ECW in late 1996, not long after winning his medals, and there were plans to turn him pro in that company. However, the day he appeared at the ECW Arena, ECW ran a crucifixion angle with Raven. Kurt, being a devout Christian, was disgusted by it and walked out on the company.

Fiddlesticks! I'd completely forgotten about that

but since he was pushed quickly and wasn't a big fan of pro-wrestling and doesn't take the business as personal as Bret, people have a tendency to hold it against him.

I don't think too many people hold that against him to be honest. If you're good (and nobody is saying Angle isn't good) enough to justify your push that's all that matters. Angle learned quickly and earned his spot. Same with Owen Hart. He got the push from day one when he started out, as he was a very good worker basically from the start.

Yeah, but I'm sure as you know as a fan your knowledge and appreciation of the finer points and subtleties of the sport grows the longer you expose yourself to it. Bret was literally immersed in wrestling from birth, and had been wrestling for nearly 20 years, and had been in the WWF for five of them before he became THE Bret Hart we all know and love and started delivering ***** main event matches. Angle has been around for a much shorter period and apparently didn't watch any form of pro wrestling until 1998, so its at least understandable that he has yet to produce the sort of depth in his matches that Bret routinelly delivered. Even before Bret started getting into the ring, he'd had an early childhood which because of his family consisted of nothing but wrestling. I certainly think that as good as Angle is, Bret is better than him in mosts respects, its only that the Hitman was in a more advantageous position to succeed than Kurt was.

What started off as a simple and harmless review of 'From the Vault' has ended up as a fascinating debate over HBK and has branched off into areas such as his selling, his 'rare quality', the best matches of his career and even, quite bizarrely, 'The Undertaker'.

Its like the Eddie Izzard of wrestling threads!Sorry to chime in a bit late, but I'm in agreance with Bionic Redneck on this one. What bothers me about the nip-up was the fact that it spits in the face of everything that went before it. If the match was twenty minutes long, HBK would nip-up at the eighteen minute mark, bounce around the ring like a powerball hit a flying forearm, a superkick and 1-2-3 It'd be over, the finish of the match would totally negate the good work of the bulk. This happened in far too many HBK matches for my liking, especially during his 95/96 babyface run. Take his Good Friends Better Enemies match with Diesel, he gets powerbombed through the table and does he sell it? Briefly. Before running into the ring, kicking Nash's arse and pinning him in rapid order, and then ridiculously dancing around celebrating, when he should be laying dead on the mat selling the after affects of a brutal, gruelling contest. Its almost as though he used the nip-up to make his opponents look weak, after absorbing everything they could throw at him he'd just say 'Fuck that!' and finish them off with the usual. It made his bouts with Owen Hart and the Bulldog amongst others appear to be nothing more than extended squashes when really they wern't. Apologies if I'm covering old ground but its just really annoying watching him do it. Randy Orton you've been warned.

He is more entertaining, plain and symple. Brets character seemed very one dimensional, although he was good on the mic his interviews and promos were really always very similar and based along the same line everytime. Though this may not be his fault, it still affects the character for me and character wise Angle takes it.

I think Angle's delivery is better than Bret's was. If you remember Bret had a tendancy to sometimes trip of his own tongue in interviews. Although that was maybe down to the fact that Bret was always 'himself' as opposed to playing an OTT stand-up comedian character like Angle does.

The in Ring stuff of Angle also constantly keeps me entertained where as sometimes Brets stuff dragged a little. Again this may be because I was a lot younger when I watched Brets good stuff where as Angle is more recent to me.

I think Terje made a comment in the HBK thread about Shawn's work being more accessible than Bret's and I think that applys here too. Because of their lack of substance, all-action nature and simpler use of psychology Angle's matches are far more easily digestible to the masses than Bret's were. Angle is like a blockbuster movie, hugely entertaining, easy and undemanding to watch and a great way to spend ninety minutes or so (or 15-20 in this case) But rarely demands repeat viewing and rarely stands the test of time. Bret on the other hand is like a deep character study, bulging with sub-text, his matches are like an emotional roller coaster ride but because of the mentally demanding nature is sometimes not an 'easy watch' but touches you emotionally in ways the blockbuster never could. Its like comparing Martin Scorsese to Jerry Bruckheimer, both undeniably great at what they do but saying the action-hack is superior to the true story teller is just mis-guided.I find can always watch Angle's matches while doing something else (like writing an essay or listening to music or something) because they can be enjoyed without giving them your full attention. Bret's matches were usually so crammed with substance that they DEMANDED your full attention. And its for that reason why I can understand why some people call him bland or boring because of the level of mental participation needed when watching his matches. You WATCH Angle's matches, you EXPERIENCE Bret's.

Shawn Michaels vs The Undertaker Hell in a Cell****1/2

That match is not that good. It's basically a squash for 30 minutes. Taker sells nothing, not even Shawn's finisher. Michaels ridiculously oversells every move Taker does to him, and the finish is absurd. It's a fun match, but it wasn't a MOTYC.

I actually thought UT sold for a good portion of that match. Remember UT was wrestling the 200lb HBK (I know Michaels was meant to be percieved as the top guy but when he's going up against a seven footer in a cage there's got to be some compromise) not the 400lb Vader, any more selling on his part would have screwed up the big man/little man dynamic (UT sells a hell of a lot more in their Casket match and it just doesn't look right). I thought it was incredibly brutal and dramatic brawl and would rightfully have been the MOTY if it wern't for Austin/Bret at WM13.