Wrestling Forum banner

The 2012 MOTYC thread

340K views 3K replies 192 participants last post by  Alan4L 
#1 ·
#534 ·
Oh and I have one more complaint that I forgot to mention about the style of wrestling that I so am not in love with- overdone near falls/roll ups. Have people forgotten the purpose of a roll up? Last time I checked it works perfectly in a match where the babyface has been getting the living hell pounded out of him and then just when you think he has nothing left in the tank, he's able to duck the clothesline off the rebound and roll up the heel. Then, the heel basically gets kicks out and the face runs straight into a clothesline. Can this simple but effective style of wrestling be found on the indies nowadays? I'm just asking.

Not even going to bother to touch on how ridiculous the overdone, let's roll oll over the goddamn place with it, leverage pins are.

Oh and as for nearfalls. Good Lord! False finishes, they're everywhere. It's worse than Atttiude Era false finishes! They get redundant and lose that "Holy shit, how did he kick out!" feel fast.
 
#536 ·
Why does his review look forced though?

I watched the latest NJPW show, the New Japan Cup Day 2. Nothing MOTYC level but Nakamura/Anderson was very enjoyable, and MiSu/Makabe was okay too (I mark for MiSu), but Tanahashi/Naito annoyed the living fuck out of me. Absolutely nothing made sense at all! FUCK!

I was about ready to jump on the Naito bandwagon after the Okada performance which was so great, but the Kojima match didn't do much for me and then there was this! I'm still holding out hope he has more great stuff in him, but he keeps doing the leg work, and the only time it has meant anything was in the Okada match. The Tanahashi match had both guys going after the leg, and non of it led anywhere in th slightest, Tana's selling was okay for like 30 seconds but Naitos was abysmal and they both just completely forgot about it. The last thing we need is another Tanahashi type who uses all these fucking dragon screws for THE WHOLE MATCH, and then hits a bunch of frog splashes and spinning twirly neckbreaker things for no reason. Stupid.
 
#542 ·
I really don't understand how Melzter rates all those All Japan matches 5 stars and didn't even give one Taker match 5. I don't even want to get started on vastly overrated he rated the Elgin and Richards match. They had no prior history at all with eachother and with that there was no way they would be able to tell a story with eachother. It was just a typical strong style indy and japan type match with a little more exaggerated kick outs and Elgin pulling out all the tricks in his bags which were amazing but nothing to give 5 stars to
 
#549 ·
Why people take Meltzer seriously in 2012 is beyond me. Seriously, it's not 80s, folks. Move the fuck on. lolmeltzer

Elgin and Richards match. They had no prior history at all with eachother and with that there was no way they would be able to tell a story with eachother.
What a horseshit. Lawls.
 
#546 ·
I think he has always been pretty close to general consensus. Normaly only one rating off and that has normally been giving something ****3/4 instead of *****.
 
#547 ·
Dave Meltzer has not given any Bryan Danielson match 5 stars , or Nigel too for that matter. That's one of the reasons I don't take him serious. Elgin vs Richards is so flawed compared to any Danielson/Nigel matches. It's a joke really.
 
#548 ·
Doesn't seem like that much of a big deal or a reason not to take someone seriously.

I think you do take him seriously and that's why it matters.


He has always given them fair reviews.
 
#550 · (Edited)
To be honest, I don't think I've given a 5 star rating to any Bryan Danielson matches but he has allot of ****3/4 matches from me. I did give a five star to Richards/Danielson but I'm thinking about changing that to the border rating as well. Doesn't mean I think any less of Danielson but it's just that I don't believe he has that match yet.

How in the hell do you play up a review? Its an expression of one's opinion on a match. Am I just being naiive or something because I really can't follow that trail of thought.
Being natural means he doesn't seem to be trying to nitpick. In your review, you would never give the match a positive before stacking on negatives. It is giving people the idea that you are trying your best to make the match seem as if it sucked. Hence you are playing up to something. Like I would never write a negative essay about something I don't really like or care to much about where as if a match impresses me so much, I'll sing the positives of it. That's why I have a big argument as to why Strong/Stevens is 5 stars and there is a reason why I don't have book on why Chris Hero/Castagnoli was a waste of fucking time. Get it?

edit: It can also mean you have no real emotion to it as well I believe.
 
#551 ·
Being natural means he doesn't seem to be trying to nitpick. In your review, you would never give the match a positive before stacking on negatives. It is giving people the idea that you are trying your best to make the match seem as if it sucked. Hence you are playing up to something. Like I would never write a negative essay about something I don't really like or care to much about where as if a match impresses me so much, I'll sing the positives of it. That's why I have a big argument as to why Strong/Stevens is 5 stars and there is a reason why I don't have book on why Chris Hero/Castagnoli was a waste of fucking time. Get it?

edit: It can also mean you have no real emotion to it as well I believe.
The match was being regarded as one of the best matches in years and a surefire ***** bout on here, if I'd have slapped a 6 line review and then gone **3/4 people would have jumped on me with comments about me being a hater, not liking it because its Richards etc etc.

I put up every argument as to why I didn't like it, in case anyone wanted to offer an alternative explanation as to why they thought the opening was better than I did, why the middle perhaps didn't drag as much etc etc etc. I'd sooner talk too much about certain key aspects of the match rather than give a very brief analysis and then slap on a rating that is likely to be seen as too low by a lot of people judging by the reaction so far.

I talked in the opening paragraph about what I particularly liked, and even devoted another paragraph praising Elgin's build to the spinning powerbomb. I did then talk about why the spot as good as it was could have been better, but I feel I gave a good overview of what I enjoyed and why the match came across as potentially being great rather than an outright bad match.
 
#552 ·
I don't think he's directly insulting you, SC. I haven't seen you ever attack another's opinion as wrong.

I don't believe that opinions are only valid if you give a lengthy explanation as to why you hold one. For example, a good writer could summarise why they did/did not like something in a single sentence. A debate or discussion does not always have to comprise of two sets of lengthy diatribe. In many ways it is much more skilful to argue your point clearly, concisely and, most importantly of all, quickly. People who write lengthy reviews and then show total disregard toward others who choose not to write at a similar length run the risk of nullifying their opinion as nothing more than fan-boy pseudo-intellectual conjecture.
 
#553 ·
Ok, when I read it and saw 'in your review' I took it to mean he was explaining the point by looking at my review, especially as I did have a lot of negative aspects of the match in my review. Apologies Caponex if you were speaking generally.

Legend I agree with you there, its just I prefer to cover my bases in regards to picking out certain aspects of the match I didn't like and citing an example, rather than leaving it general and then someone comes along and asks me to expand on my argument and I have to go off of memory...which can usually result in me thinking something took place when it didn't. I also don't really plan on rewatching it anytime soon so I figured I'd cover as much as I could for future reference, i.e I can recall my feeling regarding the Guardrail Powerbomb spot now just be re-reading that part of my review, which will help if someone picks upon that segment of the match and asks me to explain further what I didn't like/felt was capable of being improved.
 
#555 · (Edited)
I'm aware you don't NEED to write a long review whcih will automatically have you an argument no-one will disagree with, I'm just saying I wrote a longer review because there was a lot of competing elements in the match I liked and disliked and I found it easy to go into detail to explain as I thought necessary given how popular and well received the match had been on this board since it aired. If I thought it was an abortion of a match I'd have kept it relatively shorter, though even when I HATE a match I'll still go into detail as I feel its important to when you're reviewing a match, not essential if others can keep it briefer but as I've said before I can always go into quite a long review even when I don't intend to...shit just gets out of control and I find myself so wrapped up in trying to argue about certain spots/characteristics that I forget just how long the review is going to be by the end.

End of the day I felt there was a lot of things to talk about in the match and in typical me fashion I rambled like a mad prick at times and covered far more than even I thought I would have done. I don't see that as being fake or playing up my review, I just see it as an honest expression of my feelings on the match and trying to explain my reasoning for not liking a very popular match as much as others.
 
#557 ·
You don't need write lengthy explanations to have a valid opinion but you should be able to back up your opinion and SC does that better than most people on this board. This is probably why I don't see pages upon pages of debate on his rating of a match. He isn't a completely Negative Nancy like some people may be when they write a lot. We are having a bigger problem with someone saying the review didn't seem natural. I honestly thought it was meant as a joke. I have seen in a few reviews of how there wasn't a good flow to a match and how the match didn't build. So I thought he was just being snarky but I could be wrong.

I honestly haven't seen the match and I usually wait to spend my money on dvds a little later so I can focus on the top matches without blowing my load before something truly great comes. I have faith that some awesome stuff will eventually come out of the indys but I'm not sure if Davey/Elgin is that match. I think that people really digging this match could help lead up to that EPIC match. Knowing that the fans are expecting something great, the wrestlers should be able to try and give the fans just that because if they don't then they will get shit all over. I know ROH wants the big money match to be Steen vs Davey but after watching their match in PWG I'm just not sure how good it will be. And Steen has been able to make these hardcore matches in ROH awesome but that's not what he will probably get against Davey. If DGUSA puts on an awesome match it will probably come out of nowhere since I don't really see anyone here gushing over DGUSA on a regular basis. It sounds like PWG's KRR3 wasn't the greatest ever but I wasn't expecting it to be. We won't know anything about World's Finest until it is out. DDT4 looks decent, but now that there is a Generico/Mack team it will be interesting to see how it goes. The opening round match with them against Roddy/Callihan could very well decide the tournament leading either team to go against Super Dragon/Steen. Now that would be pretty sweet. CHIKARA isn't known for putting on MOTYC instead they are known for consistency and just good story telling with stories that last a long time and always produce results. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of MOTYC, ala El Generico/123 Kid and Kingston/Quack, but that just isn't their primary focus. We have just gotten into Q2 of the year and there have been a lot of great matches in Japan I just feel that some great American Indy matches are coming. Can't blame a kid for hoping.
 
#558 ·
I think a long winded negative review comes off a lot worse than a short one.

It just ends up seeming like harping on and the reasons for not liking something generaly seem petty when put out into words one after the other. Looks more like trying to justify it to yourself than anything else.

I think the less specific the better unless someone asks. "I didn't like it because of some of the issues I had with selling." is a lot easier to get past than hearing that someone didn't like a match because a wrestler got up to fast from a powerbomb and that a wrestler kicked out at 1 instead of 2.

All those small issues build into a big issue with a certain aspect of a match, by themselves it just looks like 'nit picking'.

But like everything else, that's just how I see it sometimes and why a long negative review might receive more hate.
 
#560 ·
#566 · (Edited)
He's the heel every snivelling coward/obnoxious douche aims to be. He just had to speak and people wanted him to be murdered before their eyes. It didn't matter whether he was made to look great or the biggest pussy on the planet, the man's mannerisms, personality and voice just made everyone hate him and allowed him to make an angle based around wrestling women feel less ridiculous than it had any right to be.

The fact he and Lawler managed to work as many people into believing it was real and took a regional feud onto Late night with Letterman and made the feud mainstream in under 10 minutes just speaks volumes about its greatness. And of course, THAT SLAP.

:mark: :mark: :mark:





Long Live Kaufman!!!







*and Lawler..
 
#568 ·
I barely have any free time recently, but I managed to watch Callihan/Sasaki at least, and it was really fucking great. Great psychological tests of strength, great storytelling told through some really stiff chops and strikes. These guys are awesome, especially Sasaki. Callihan is great as usual too, he has that swag and Japs like him. Great match, 11 minutes of awesome. With more time, it could've been a legit MOTYC. ***1/2
 
#577 ·
I had the same initial thoughts until Phil himself shot it down.

Segunda mirrors his view points to a staggering degree. If he is completely sincere his username helps very little. I don't want to call him a biter but he should seriously establish himself independently as I really dont think the simarilites are completely organic.
 
#576 ·
Nope, never claimed to have been either. I answered his last post via PM since I didn't see the point in further going off topic in this thread (yes I realise the irony in writing this reply).

I came across the blog before joining, found it helpful and figured it was a decent username when registering here.

Now let's get back to talking about potential MOTYCs, or Lawler/Kaufman. Whichever :side:
 
#578 ·
Random post: Based on what I've read on DVDVR and the people that post there, most of them are VERY similar in how they explain their opinions, how they post, and what they like. Hell, I remember doing an IP check on Segunda when he first showed up because I thought he was a re-joiner with the way he posted :lmao (obviously not on this forum as I wasn't a mod at them time).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top