Six Years Ago This Week..........

[Guest overbooked]

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 pants

I way I see it, personally, is it all depends on how you watch Michaels' stuff. If you look at his selling in isolation, so to speak, and compare it to the generally accepted rules of psychology/selling/whatever, then it can look flawed.But in doing that, you miss the bigger picture. Shawn Michaels' work can only be fully appreciated if you watch it within a wider context, as part of Michaels' character and over-all performance.For instance, sure, a kip-up in the latter stages of a match is hokey from a selling point of view, but when Michaels does it, it makes perfect sense to me, because of his character. That kip-up, that comeback, represents Michaels' never-say-die attitude, his cockiness, his showmanship, his refusal to accept the shitty situation he's got himself into, his spirit, all things Michaels' getting across in his work. Basically, his character makes what would be flaws elsewhere, make sense.From LOP:

For me enjoyment = quality in pro wrestling

I can see that. Two workers could put to together the 'perfect' match, with no flaws in selling, psychology or work, but if the crowd don't give a shit, they haven't done their job properly. Wrestling should not be performed in a vacuum. It's all about the interaction between the workers and the audience.

[edgecrusher]

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

[Onyx2]

The big difference is that I don't watch those matches thinking "they are a pile of shit in the ring but I love them", I watch them thinking "it's all great"!!

I was more getting at the subject of this thread: if you analyse Warrior v Hogan by a slide rule consisting of highspots, selling and quality of moves used it was indeed "a pile of shit in the ring". However I watch it and think "bugger me this is fantastic! Absolutely electric!" and those details simply do not matter next to the story and 'idea' of the match. I'm not disputing your points - in fact I'm agreeing with them! - but I suspect somebody seeing the match for the first time today would wonder what all the fuss was about. I think part of watching it for me reminds me of the anticipation for what was the biggest main event for some time! The same could probably be applied to quite a few matches that I find amazing; it was watching it at the time that completed the experience.

[Rob Edwards]

If Jack enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place this year.

http://www.smarkschoice.com/forum/index.ph...wtopic=76&st=20don't have time to get to the rest as I'm just finishing my lunch break at work, I'll get to it later

[MoChatra]

If Jack enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place this year.

http://www.smarkschoice.com/forum/index.ph...wtopic=76&st=20don't have time to get to the rest as I'm just finishing my lunch break at work, I'll get to it later

LOL. Even in praising stuff, he still puts it down at the same time. Good stuff.It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the past, including shitty squash matches on Worldwide, like some do. Whilst I don't agree with this particular quote, it's still interesting, "Rob don't get me started on the stupidity and outright weirdness and contradiction of the majority of old British wrestling..."Don't tell me; Johnny Saint was the RVD of the seventies.

[Rob Edwards]

I think they're both just supple Mo ;-)

[bobbins]

It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the past, including shitty squash matches on Worldwide, like some do.

Despite the fact that this sentence makes no sense, I can still deduce that you are being a smarmy two-faced cock, Mo. Even more so than usual. Well done.

[MoChatra]

It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the past, including shitty squash matches on Worldwide, like some do.

Despite the fact that this sentence makes no sense, I can still deduce that you are being a smarmy two-faced cock, Mo. Even more so than usual. Well done.

Takes one to know one.

[bobbins]

It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the past, including shitty squash matches on Worldwide, like some do.

Despite the fact that this sentence makes no sense, I can still deduce that you are being a smarmy two-faced cock, Mo. Even more so than usual. Well done.

Takes one to know one.

That comeback lacked the psychology and depth of Big Sky vs Todd Zane 14/8/92.

[MoChatra]

It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the past, including shitty squash matches on Worldwide, like some do.

Despite the fact that this sentence makes no sense, I can still deduce that you are being a smarmy two-faced cock, Mo. Even more so than usual. Well done.

Takes one to know one.

That comeback lacked the psychology and depth of Big Sky vs Todd Zane 14/8/92.

Correction skippy. It's 8/14/92. PUNT~!

[Terje Rindal]

So Bobbins,puro or lucha ?

[Guest Fadda]

Let's be honest, who gives a fuck about Inoki's booking. You can debate until your blue in the face about whether that's a valid argument or not, but what's the point? It's fans who waste their time devoting themselves to these kind of things, rather than bothering to, like, ENJOY wrestling that irks me.If any fan enjoys over-analysing and picking holes in William Regal's selling, Jerry Lawler's 'moveset' or Bill Dundee's lack of psychology in his work, then more power to them. I could just as easily do the same. Heck, it's not like I sit there and 'mark out' over everything I see.If Mo enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place over 10 years ago. Much like most indy-centric modern smarts, he marks for all the usual stuff, and he's now become obsessive about ROH and NOAH, but as far as yesteryear's wrestling is concerned, I don't think anything floats his boat.It's interesting to see he doesn't look at all things from the present, including shitty indy matches on ROH, like some do.

[MoChatra]

If Mo enjoys wrestling so much, find me one quote or review from him praising a match or event that's taken place over 10 years ago.

Check out the last Powerslam supplement called 'The Greatest Wrestling Shows of All Time'. Look at all those shows I picked from ROH and CZW.

[Guest Fadda]

Must have missed that - was that the issue with the Kane article?

[MoChatra]

Must have missed that - was that the issue with the Kane article?

Funnily enough, yes it was!