I wasn't replying to you with that, I saw someone else saying that. My reponse was a general response to things I read.
Fair enough. I won't rehash it. It was your analysis. IMO you have a bias with the analysis, but its pro-wresting so everyone has a bias. I'm not pretending I don't either. And I give you props for putting in the time to do it.
I can assure you that there is no bias.
Link me the thread. I might be mixing you up with another person with a similar name.
Not going to rehash the first article. All I will say is: I've watched all of AJ's career from like 06 or 07 on, plus his work I've gone back and watched from prior years. I know you said you spent alot of time going back to watch some of his TNA stuff, but I didn't have to "go back" to watch any of it as far as the bulk of his career for purposes of anaylizing.
The reason I do it is for two reasons.
1. Things I don't necessarily notice at the time due to my mindset at that point are things I'll notice the second time around. And that isn't even with old stuff. So for example, I revisited the match between Styles and Cena at Summerslam only a week after first seeing it. Initially, I had high praise for the match and considered it a match of the year contender. But after the second viewing, I ended up hating the match. I guess it was more so a case of me being sucked into the story and the atmosphere of the match, both of which were great.
2. The little things. Little things are a bitch because they can be very important when it comes to in-ring work. And more often than not, they aren't something I'm going to remember unless it was from a match I really liked and consider one of my favorites.
Yup. Among other things. Again my response was a general one to things I've been reading in the thread and in general how I feel watching these shows and interacting with the "universe". It's not what I grew up loving.
The proof is in the pudding. The matches Mahal and Ambrose had with AJ were the best of their year. For Mahal: probably the best of his career.
This argument doesn't work for me, and here's why:
Ambrose: This was the first and only instance through out the year apart from his triple threat shield match where Ambrose was actually given proper story structure and match time consistently. He was in the role that he belonged in and he thrived on it. After he was done with Styles, he dropped off the map very quickly. He had a decent feud with the Miz but their styles simply didn't mesh and their chemistry was wonky at best. And then he just got thrown into a terrible feud with Baron Corbin that lacked proper direction and didn't get much screen time. After Ambrose went back over to Raw and teamed with Rollins, he was right back to delivering excellent matches again and was a big reason for that.
Mahal: Same case (sort of) but a different scenario. One of the unfortunate things about Mahal's title reign was that after Orton, there wasn't much for him to work with. Nakamura was up next on the list and while the matches weren't necessarily terrible, everything about the feud was just wrong. Styles was the opponent Mahal desperately needed. And when they had their match on Smackdown, they knocked it out of the park.
Of course AJ will give guys like Roman and Cena props. He's a humble individual and a loyal guy to workplace. He's not going to bury Reigns/Cena, or put himself over. And certainly not when talking about Vince's handpicked guys.
Again, there is a problem with this logic, and it's that it's a baseless claim to make. Sure, there are situations where people will do it because they feel it's the right thing to do. It doesn't mean that isn't actually the case. You have no way of proving otherwise.
I personally never go off those claims, unless there is a very specific reason for it. What I normally go off of are what I am seeing in the ring. One of the best ways to tell if someone is being carried and/or if they are simply going along with what the other person is telling them to do is by how the match is structured, and how often you see commands being handed out by the wrestlers. More often than not, you can tell when these situations are happening (the best example is Ultimate Warrior vs Randy Savage at Wrestlemania, where you can see Savage telling Warrior what to do at almost every turn).
So for example, CM Punk vs Brock Lesnar at Summerslam is a match where I think CM Punk actually carried Brock. This isn't me saying Brock needs to be carried. He absolutely does not. In his prime he was one of the best in-ring performers in the world. But at this point, Brock does not care. But CM Punk does, and he's the type of guy who will make sure things go the way he wants them to, or he won't do it at all. Lesnar, in what I can only assume was out of respect for Punk, went along with it and performed the kind of match Punk wanted him to perform. He sold a lot, he paced it really well, he did a lot more work than he normally does. Lesnar did the same thing with AJ and Joe, both of which again I think were out of respect for them.
You compare Cena's & Roman's selling to AJ. You compare the moves and how they are executed, as aswell as the range of move-sets. Its not close in my opinion in any of those aspects. AJ Styles can have a good match with a broomstick. Cena and Reigns aren't that level of worker.
When did I ever compare any of those aspects of their in-ring work to AJ? I have gone on record to state that AJ is excellent when it comes to selling and execution. I think those are the two best things about his in-ring work. And when it comes to Cena, I don't share the same opinion. Yeah, Cena's bumping is great (as is Styles). And Reigns? I've shat on him multiple times now when it comes to those aspects. So...yeah, don't know where you're getting any of this from.
I don't agree that he struggles against Owens or in some other formula. The WWE runs a very controlled, constricted operation. If you put all of these guys in a promotion on a show where each guy is allowed the same freedom and time in their matches, the abilities of each would become more apparent IMO.
When you take the WWE machine away, I don't think Roman Reigns or John Cena would make it as big in some other promotions going on just their talent. Like AJ could. In my opinion.
Okay? That's great for other promotions. This thread is about WWE. And yeah, outside WWE AJ would probably have a much better program with Owens. But in WWE? Where Owens is still being forced to be a comedic heel who isn't trying to get heat but instead be entertaining? Yeah, AJ is going to struggle with that, and guess what? He did.
Well here I just don't think we agree. I think we agree on WWE's ineptitude. I think Samoa Joe has done fine and I like AJ's "time for talk is over" approach. I think WWE has dropped the ball as far as Joe not going to AJ's house and them not being given the attention they should as the championship fued. But I think the guys have done a good job keeping me interested despite that. A2D for me.
This isn't a matter of what I think. Right now AJ being overshadowed by Joe is a popular consensus. Yeah, you aren't wrong for thinking that AJ has held his own here. But the fact of the matter is, this opinion I just gave is something being said by the majority. And that's a problem. What I think on the matter is irrelevant. If it came down to what I think, Cesaro and Sheamus wouldn't still be heels. But hell, they're doing well in it, and the majority seems to think the same thing. So who am I to say that they should change it?
I went back and watched HIAC and it actually was better than I originally thought. I think I enjoyed SS a tad more but it was also a very good match.
Yeah, I agree. I don't know where the hate for the match is coming from, but I thought they did a great job just like at Summerslam.
I agree about the Naka/AJ matches. I thought they were better than given credit for. I agree WWE dropped the ball.
And I don't think a heel turn should never overshadow a face. If that was the case John Cena & Roman Reigns are the ultimate examples in Pro-Wrestling history of being completely overshadowed as a face. Far Far Far Far Far worse than AJ ever has.
Reigns? Yes. But I'm not arguing that he's not a lost cause. That one goes without saying.
Cena however is a different story, because he's still able to carry himself on his own and add to the story in his own way. Yes, he has been overshadowed, but he still found ways to keep the feud going and contribute to it. That's the issue with the Styles situation. Nakamura turned heel and it became ALL ABOUT Nakamura's heel turn. All eyes were on him. There was never any fucks given by the majority of fans about what AJ was doing, because at that point he paled in comparison.
[QUOTE=AJ_Styles_P1;76202724]And I also don't think he was completely overshadowed, I think it worked alright. It made me want to see the match where Aj was going to get his hands on him & Naka wasn't going to be able to cheat to win/get by. A2D again I guess.
In that timeframe, John Cena literally no sold being in a burning car. LMAO.
I don't remember this at all, so you're gonna have to explain that to me.
I'd agree Cena cared more then than he does now but holy crap.
Styles psychology & selling in his match vs Samoa Joe @ Turning Point 05 was atleast as good if not (likely) better than Cena in that timeframe. Do u have a Cena example I can compare?
Off the top of my head, any of his matches with Shawn Michaels and his last man standing match with Umaga.
We must just look at wrestling differently. Out of curiosity; what's your favourite WCW match? (or one of)
Couldn't tell you. I've honestly never taken the time to think about what match from WCW I liked best. There's a lot of great ones out there, don't get me wrong. But yeah, at the moment nothing comes to mind.
For what it's worth, my all time favorite match is Steve Austin vs Bret Hart Submission Match. And a while back, I made a detailed analysis on it but it was in a thread, so finding it would be difficult.