edgecrusher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSxSzucggVk&search=KENTA

 

Kenta Kobashi chops Tenryu until he bleeds. Was that a hardway slap-to-gore event or was it staged?

http://www.youtube.com/w/cena-sucks?v=Ppky...st%20all%20odds

 

Kinda funny video about one fan's blind hatred of John Cena as champion.

Although im semi familiar with both of those guys, Im not that big on Puro.

http://www.youtube.com/w/KENTA-/-Marufuji-...search=marufuji

 

KENTA/Marufuji vs. Ricky Marvin/Juventud Guerrera.

 

SEVEN

 

KINDS

 

OF

 

AWESOME.

Who WAS Elizabeth in the first place, and did she actually marry Savage? -with a loo brush

So are you excusing The Rock for poor draws because he was the heel? Ok fair enough. But you cant knock HHH's drawings then either, because he was/is mostly heel where as The Rock and Austin are mostly face. Sayin he only drew if he was against The Rock, Foley or Austin. - Surely the same heel rule you apply to The Rock has to be applied to Trips too?

I'd say its different, because I don't remember Triple H drawing particularly well as a face except during the DX years. Not having the figures he may not even have drawn well then, either. If I'm right then the fact that Trippers doesn't draw well as a face obviously marks him as a bit limited. The Rock, Austin and Foley all did well whether face or heel. I'm not sure if Mick was ever a big star until he turned face, of course... -in my pants

At Royal Rumble 2000 when HHH fought Foley in Madison Square Garden, it wasnt Foley selling it on his own. For the past 6 months Foley had been mid-card at best. He was the Rocks sidekick in the The Rock n Sock Connection, teaming with Al Snow in the tag team division and feuding with Val Venis on PPV. So you cant give Foley all the credit for the draws in his feud with HHH.

Foley did almost all of the buildup for that match. His promo where he turned into Cactus Jack (who is a Madison Square Garden sentimental favourite anyway AND had history with Triple H as well) was brilliant stuff, and I think the draw in that feud can largely be handed to Trippers. There was nothing special about that match without Cactus Jack in it. The entire basis of it was that Trippers was in deep trouble and had pushed Mick too far and was now going to suffer for it. He didn't of course, because Trippers is the hardest man alive, but that was the basis of the match and the reason it sold: All provided by Mick. Whether Trippers had sold it stone cold or terrified, people would have paid to see that. -with a loo brushAnother point is that even if Mick wasn't feuding at the top of the card he was still massively over. The Rock and Sock connection was hilarious as it was intended to be, as was the Al Snow teamup angle. I don't even remember feuding with Val Venis so I can't remember anything about it. I doubt it was impressive, though... -in my pants

After that HHH was involved in better feuds than The Rock.The following feuds happened at the same time as each other. HHH v Jericho was better than Rock v Benoit for Fully Loaded. HHH v Foley was better than The Rock v Big Show. And Triple H v Angle was better than nearly any Rock feud/storyline!

So in other words, Triple H had better feuds when he was working with people who are renowned for being brilliant with the stick and incredibly charismatic, while The Rock was trying to have equally good feuds with Mr Roboto and The Big Slow? -with a loo brushCan you name me one wrestler who has had a brilliant feud with The Big Slow? Chris Benoit is a different matter, I think, because of recent he has gotten over through sheer hard work, partly thanks to Kurt Angle. However, Triple H of today couldn't have a decent feud with Benoit I'm quite certain, because he isn't the right kind of opponent to play to Benoit's strengths. A Benoit feud without great matches doesn't seem to work. Trippers was given better opposition. Had their roles been reversed it is quite likely that the results would have been pretty pathetic for Trippers, IMO. -in my pants

In 2000, Triple H was a much bigger star than The Rock. He had better feuds, matches and main evented more than Rocky. Even when Rock was main eventing a PPV, HHH's matches were the more looked forward to matches - and this is pre holding down the talent HHH.

Better feuds and matches, maybe, but he was never, is not, and will never be as big a star as The Rock. Maybe you looked forward to HHH's matches more than the average fan, but the way the people reacted to their champion suggests that you're in the minority. -with a loo brush

And for you to sayQUOTE  HHH didn't do big numbers without Rock, Austin and Foley as I  recall You could say The Rock didnt do big numbers with out HHH, Austin and Foley either.When did The Rock draw big money without either one of these stars? Maybe Hogan at Mania 18, but that was Hogans draw, Hogan would have got that draw with anyone - HHH, Stone Cold, Undertaker, Kurt Angle or the Brooklyn Brawler - The Rock cannot get credit for that draw.All of The Rock's biggest matches and draws include HHH, Austin or Foley.

Can't argue with anything but the 'that was Hogan's draw' comment. The match didn't draw because Hogan was involved, but because it was a dream match come true. How did The Rock vs. Goldberg compare to Trippers efforts, as a matter of point? -in my pantsHad Hogan been in the ring with the Brooklyn Brawler he might have gotten massive pops, but the crowd heat would not have been so mind-bogglingly intense. The Rock gets half-credit for that draw. Had Triple H been involved in that match I doubt it would have done half as well. -with a loo brush

Batman and Robin and The Predator, too. -with a loo brush

I think JUmbo's really good, from what I've seen. I don't know if I've seen his classics, mind, for all I know I saw him in the twilight of his career, but the matches I saw with Mitsuhara Misawa didn't quite grip me in the same way some of the Kobashi ones have and do. I need to get more puro, dammit. Haven't seen any new wrestling in ages and talking about Kobashi makes me want to see a best of tape! But I do need to brush up on some of the golden oldies too...mmmm....golden oldies.... -with a loo brush

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except:

Many believe Kobashi to be a shoe-in for the best worker of all time. I can't think of anyone who has ever backed up a claim to justify not including him in the top five

I don't know anybody (maybe Mo?) who believes he is a "shoe-in" for the best worker of all time. He wouldn't be in my top five, either. I'd take Kawada, Misawa, Hansen, Hokuto, Destroyer, Jumbo and maybe more (possibly Tenryu, Kong, Liger, Race)all over Kobashi. Plus, there are plenty of great wrestlers out there that I haven't seen enough of to comment (Yokota, Santo etc.) so I don't even know it Kobashi would make my top 10.

I think there's a few on the forum who've said similar, and I like him best. Still, I haven't even heard of Yokoto and Santo so what do I know? -in my pantsI suppose I'll have to admit defeat on Kenta's inclusion in the top 100, since its pretty much established that being a good wrestler is a fairly minor factor in the rankings. Grrr. HE SHOULD BE NUMBER 1 ANYWAY, DAMMIT! -with a loo brush

I third the guy who mentioned Kobashi and Toyota. Why aren't they on there and Rowdy frickin' Roddy Piper is? Maybe he's better with the stick, but he was never a better wrestler, certainly wasn't as charismatic, and I sincerely doubt he was a bigger draw. Can ANYONE justify or explain this little quandry?

Piper was a far bigger star than Toyota was. Kobashi is more arguable, but personally I'd put Piper above him too. Sure, they were better wrestlers, but for promos, charisma, drawing ability and historical importance, Piper is way ahead of both.

How's it fair to compare Toyota and Kobashi to Piper on promos, considering that a) they speak another language (sorry if you speak Japanese, I didn't know) and b) they both worked in companies whose promo style differs massively from WWF/E? As far as you know they could be brilliant with the stick. -with a loo brushI'm sorry, you must back up that charisma statement. Both Kobashi and Toyota have shedloads of charisma. I'll agree that Aja Kong is a bigger star than Toyota, so I'll switch gears and include her in this. How does Piper compare to Kong/Kobashi in charisma? In my opinion, he certainly isn't higher. -in my pantsDrawing ability, I sincerely doubt you're right. Yes, Piper may have drawn plenty of money, but Kong and Kobashi were both stars that helped their respective promotions reach the heights that it did. Kobashi is one of the icons from the 'golden age' of Puro, and Kong is one of the most famous female wrestlers of all time. Maybe only in Japan, but that's hardly her fault, because there's hardly any market for female wrestling in the states. Both must have drawn BUCKETLOADS when AJPW and AJW were at their heights. Both have since gone on to be massive stars in whatever promotions they touched, too. -with a loo brushHistorical importance I can't really compare on. I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be for a self-proclaimed smark. But surely Kong/Kobashi deserve some historical credit for aiding their promotions so much? Piper was only a gear in WWF, not the machine. Those two superstars were as close to being the machine as you could get (though obviously Misawa was higher than Kobashi). Anyway, please educate if I'm wrong. -in my pantsI think the fact that Toyota, Kong and Kobashi still ARE massive stars is a point in their favour, too. Nobody seems to care about Piper anymore (though he was certainly over when he returned in WWE). -with a loo brushOn top of that, all three are vastly superior workers. Many believe Kobashi to be a shoe-in for the best worker of all time. I can't think of anyone who has ever backed up a claim to justify not including him in the top five. THAT doesn't qualify him to be in a top 100?????? There is still 'wrestling' in wrestling, right? -in my pants

I third the guy who mentioned Kobashi and Toyota. Why aren't they on there and Rowdy frickin' Roddy Piper is? Maybe he's better with the stick, but he was never a better wrestler, certainly wasn't as charismatic, and I sincerely doubt he was a bigger draw. Can ANYONE justify or explain this little quandry? -in my pants

Yes, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Thanks, overbooked! -in my pantsAnd I think you have a point, Fadda. Its better to over-analyse wrestling than the people what do watch it (fear the bad grammar), but you have to admit that its annoying when the people who obsess over stuff like body part selling tell people who don't that they're wrong. Just as its annoying when you go in the other direction. I think that's the basic problem with wrestling fans. You've got two relatively distinct groups who piss each other off no end, and who spend an ungodly amount of time antagonising each other. Not healthy, IMO. -with a loo brush

And if Jack Halewood is willing to part with his cash to spend money on wrestling tapes, there's no doubt he does enjoy wrestling.

Not taking sides in this argument, but under that logic, Mary Whitehouse loved porn. -in my pants

Which is why Shawn Michaels can legitimately be believed by a great number of people to be the greatest worker of all time. The 'flaws' that are invariably brought up against him simply aren't seen as flaws by those who support him. -with a loo brushHowever, those very same flaws do make an impact with other people. I've noticed this in my reaction to other wrestlers. It seems totally contradictory, but the only way I can explain it is that there is a special something about Shawn that means I don't see the flaws as flaws. It never doesn't make sense. I think that's the thing. Shawn does his thing so very well that even if he is ignoring his own superb selling from earlier in the match it just doesn't matter. He makes it fit. I really can't explain any better than that right now. -in my pantsThe 'opinion vs fact' question is a really interesting one, but its really hard to approach. I think wrestling tends to lean more towards opinion than fact, to be honest. If you compare it to something such as, say, gymnastics, there is a set code of points in the latter. You can factually define one gymnast's performance as better than the other (though any fan'll point out that there's margins of error lol), but in wrestling you can't. I can't remember who said it on these very forums, but someone said that "There are wrestlers who by the weight of charisma alone can get a stadum on its feet with a simple knee lift", and I think that that says a great deal. An enjoyable match does NOT have to be a good match. The career of Hulk Hogan is proof of this theory. -with a loo brushThat said, almost anyone can factually prove that Hulk Hogan's matches are worse than Kurt Angles, because there is very little actual wrestling in Hogan's matches in the first place, and on top of that it tends to be done in slow motion from Hogan's side of the ring. It doesn't look even remotely realistic. So while I think some matches are factually better than others, I'm really not sure whether it makes any difference AT ALL in the end. It just seems to be something that us lot bitch about and nitpick over. -in my pants

Have to agree with that, Montymans gimmick is far from amusing as is edgecrushers.

No way. Edgecrusher - the only good gimmick poster, ever.

So, the question is, is this a matter of opinion vs. fact, or is my psychology too deep for some posters to understand? -in my pants

I second your query. -with a loo brush

OK, so there was some wire-crossage, but you weren't exactly being polite to lower occipital protuberrance, were you? -with a loo brushThe snobbishness is assuming that people think Shawn is best because Meltzer said so. If you have to actually distort the very simple words I used to get my point across then you ought to simply stop arguing. The 'you only like so-and-so because so-and-so says he's great' argument has been used many times to beat down people who side with Shawn over these mythical better workers who are really just in the same league. -in my pantsNow that I've clarified a couple of things, are we clear? -with a loo brushLike Mo said, though, there really isn't anything left to discuss. There's been a few rather eloquent and valid explanations for why Shawn Vs Taker was superb. There's been some less eloquent explanations for why it wasn't. Ultimately we're in a clash of opinions that probably aren't going to change. Where exactly do you want this discussion to go? Where CAN it go? -in my pants

I'll answer truthfully. Shawn is not one of the best to step into the ring.

Okay, I'll answer truthfully. Shawn is one of the best to step into the ring. -in my pantsThis argument is about an inch from developing into a flame war, BR, and its your fault. Stop being so fucking aggressive. You're basically saying that no-one's opinion in this thread counts unless they agree with you. There've been plenty of good arguments as to why HIAC is a good match, and some against. You haven't even given an inch. All you're willing to say is that its OK, and if anyone dares to say more than that you decry them as wrong. -with a loo brush

when there are 50 better wrestlers and just because they are a mark for him/Meltzer said so

IN YOUR OPINION. I mean, how insulting is that? Its that snobbish attitude that pisses people off. Why can't we think that Shawn's one of if not THE best, if we, having watched Kobashi, having watched Misawa, having watched Hart and Austin and all the rest, decide, on our own, that he's the best? Where the fuck does Meltzer come into it? Apparently, you've ignored the various arguments that suggest that Bret isn't better than Shawn Michaels, just like you accuse (Mo?) of. -in my pantsYeah, everyone states their opinion as fact. Not everyone states it as fact and then practically starts flaming when someone disagrees. Not necessarily saying you do, but plenty of other people do. That's where the difference comes in. And you do come across as overly negative at times. As for people spouting cliches, has it ever occurred to you that they have a point? Smarks can be gut-wrenchingly annoying at times. A lot of them really SHOULD lighten up and remind themselves that they're supposed to be enjoying themselves when they watch a match. Well, maybe I should say a lot of US should lighten up. -with a loo brushJust chill out a bit, man. And don't be such a hypocrite. You've accused someone of ignoring the arguments as to why Bret's better than Shawn. You've ignored those for the opposite case. No doubt you've dismissed them and decided that they weren't very good arguments, too. Probably much like those in the other camp have. You like Shawn, lots of people love him, and for good reason. Get used to it. -in my pants

Kind of how I think about the issue, too. Don't know if you mentioned it, but its also worth noting that most of the smarks like that also have a very SET definition of what makes a match good. -in my pants

I think that both Ray and BR suffer from the same problem: An incredibly defined sense of what wrestling is and is not, and if anything deviates from that they can't cope with it. Hence why they put Shawn down. -with a loo brushShawn Michaels is one of the best wrestlers of all time. Even Bret Hart, his worst enemy, still says that. Shawn played his character to perfection, and he wrestled HIS style to perfection. The way Shawn wrestled and wrestles is as valid a wrestling style as any other, as are the matches it produces. Pretending that it isn't is ridiculous. If you compare Shawn's matches against other matches of a similar type, Shawn's almost invariably come out better. Why? Because Shawn was actually very very good at telling a story. He just told it differently to your idol Bret. But because he tells it differently, you claim that he doesn't tell it at all. -in my pantsThe HIAC match is a brilliant match. Its engrossing, intelligently told, and it has one of the most memorable (albeit silly) finishes of all time. That said, it isn't just the finish that people remember. They remember a great number of Shawn's bumps, they remember him doing everything he could to get away from his nemesis who stalked him relentlessly, and they remember him being lucky enough to get away with it in the end. The story was very well told, and a great deal of that lands firmly in Shawn's lap. -with a loo brushOn top of that, when a match takes place inside the confines of a gimmick, you can't expect the match to stay the same. The story changes. Here they based their story almost entirely on interaction with the Cell, and this helped to make it so iconic. They used the environment brilliantly, told their story with style and panach

The difference between the nip up and Hulk's 'hulk up' is that Hulk's selling was always awful, IMO. Frankly, I can't explain why or how Hulking up EVER worked. It just did. The nip up I can understand, appreciate, and enjoy. Maybe someone here or elsewhere can explain the hulk up, but I've always thought it looked utterly stupid and usually made no sense. And he didn't always do it when he was nearly out. The other thing is that the nip up is in a different category to the moves you mentioned, redneck. Those moves are 'silly' moves, which the fans like because they're funny. For some bizarre reason, Hulking up doesn't fit into that category, and neither does the nip up. Besides that, its not that people 'like' the nip up. They like the pay off to the psychological build up. That's what the nip up is: A payoff. -in my pantsI've never thought any less of Shawn's opponents because he nipped up. Never. -with a loo brush

(Nothing wrong with the nip-up, it's called babyface fire)

It's not called babyface fire when he has had his back worked on for 10+ minutes and then he does the nip-up. Then it's called crappy selling.

I'd say otherwise. The whole point of Shawn Michaels' character is that he's capable of going 'that one step further' than everyone else, that he has inner reserves of energy to call upon at the last moment and all that. The psychology behind Shawn's nip up is actually very complex, because the action is given its meaning ENTIRELY through the selling up to that point. By looking like he was about done, that he was spent and finished, he made the fans go ballistic when they realised he wasn't finished, and that he was going to go on for just a little bit more and MAYBE win the match before the andrenaline wore off. In psychological terms, of course. Its called crappy selling by you, because you blankly refuse to see it in any other light. -with a loo brushOther people have used the nip up in a similar fashion, but never to the same kind of results. The Rock used it to, a few times, and while he got a pop, it was never to the kind of meteoric levels that Shawn used to and sometimes still does. Maybe you should work out why people loved it when he did it so much rather than knocking it all the time and adding basically nothing to this discussion. I mean, how many times have you reiterated this exact same point? -in my pants

Iron Man - it wasn't the first; far from it. Also, it's widely known as the match that exposed Shawn of being the greatest worker on the planet. A person called one of the all-time greats should have been able to do any match asked of him (ESPECIALLY with an opponent the caliber of Bret Hart), but Shawn fell on his ass here.

But surely that goes both ways? Its extremely hard to believe that Bret had no input in the Iron Man match, especially when taken into account that Michaels did have a certain amount of professional respect for Bret. Both men have said that that was the case. Its just that they personally hated each other. I know the point is that Bret has gone 60 minute matches in the past and done good, while this was Shawn's only one and it wasn't as good, but surely Bret should have been able to do more with an opponent of Shawn's caliber? -with a loo brush

And that's cool. -in my pantsBTW, Terje, has it occurred to you that we're talking about Bret AND Shawn, and not slagging each other off at the same time? Isn't that just scary? We're actually having a DISCUSSION on the matter! *Cue overly dramatic music* -with a loo brushI'm aware of the criticisms Bret gets. I meant that Bret's partisans tend to be snobbish towards Shawn partisans. Sorry I d

As a kid I was a big fan of Bret. He was just so nice, and the thing with giving a kid in the front row his glasses always had me marking. But then I saw Shawn Michaels, and I switched camps very quickly. Bret wasn't boring, but he brought nothing like the energy that Shawn brought with him. Saying that Shawn sucks because you're a super smart mark who knows all about ring psychology is ridiculous. LISTEN to the fans, that massive majority who actually matter when it comes down to it. Ultimately, WE are irrelevant. The masses, the people who went abso-fucking-lutely NUTS when Shawn did his kip-up comeback, they are the ones who matter. -in my pantsOn that level, both Hulk and Shawn are true legends, and denying it is simply denying reality. Personally, I prefer Shawn to Hulk because his matches were FULL of energy. Like I said, he sucked me in, not through some psychology trick that is supposedly incredibly absorbing (note that I DO get psychology, I'm talking about me back then), but through sheer energy, more energy than any other performer on the roster. He had me half-out of my seat alot of the time. Bret never did. Not once. -with a loo brushHowever, Bret appeals to the other side of my psyche, the part that wants to sit and pay VERY close attention to a match. And as others have already put it very eloquently, I'll just quietly agree with them. That said, for all I'll always love Bret, I'd always rather watch a Shawn Michaels or perhaps more appropriately a Kenta Kobashi. To me, Kenta's a bit like Shawn, in that he brings an incredibly dynamism to his matches, but he is a lot keener on the psychology. He's a perfect wrestler, in my eyes. -in my pantsAnyway, that's my take on the difference between them. The simple fact is that this argument will never, ever end. Why? Because to Bret's partisans its intuitively obvious that Bret is the better wrestler. To Shawn's, its intuitively obvious that he is the better wrestler. And yes, WRESTLER. Because like it or loathe it, Shawn WRESTLES, he wrestles a style, like any other style out there, and he wrestles it brilliantly. Most of the Bret fanclub act incredibly snobbishly towards Shawn, but they shouldn't. Just accept that you don't like his style and move on. Its far less insulting. (NOTE TO THE TERMINALLY INSECURE: I'm not knocking anyone in this thread, just referring to a massive trend I've noticed over the years) -with a loo brush