|
Post by The Kevstaaa on May 25, 2014 19:28:35 GMT -5
Any Nigel Mcguiness vs Bryan Danielson match. Literally any of them. This too. Got to see it live twice. Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on May 26, 2014 16:40:15 GMT -5
One of the matches that has the strongest claims to the title of "Pro Wrestling's most authentic masterpiece," hasn't actually been witnessed in over 80 years.
Joe Stecher vs Ed "Strangler" Lewis in their famous "Longest bout in history. Such a stalemate could only occur between two of wrestling's finest geniuses.
Back to the topic. The beauty of discussing Technical or Authenticity-based Wrestling, is that it minimizes entertainment preferences & puts the greatest emphasis on objectivity.
How well did the wrestlers portray the story of a legitimate wrestling contest?
Another problem with this topic is the potential ignorance of the members of the discussion.
How many wrestling fans studying anything wrestling-related that precedes 1970, or the arts of Catch, Collar & Elbow, & Greco-Roman Wrestling?
To declare that a match is the most "technical" match, is to declare it the most "authentic" match in all of Professional Wrestling's history.
Given the fact that authenticity has been the Wrestler's goal, dating back to the invention of the formal concept of "work" back in the 1910s in the carnivals, you have to have knowledge of the last 114 years of wrestling before you can even begin to hypothesize the match to be selected.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by ICW on May 26, 2014 17:00:37 GMT -5
Dean Malenko vs. Eddie Guerrero, 2 out of 3 Falls in ECW
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 18:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 21:13:06 GMT -5
Best match- Benoit vs angle. Best technical wrestler? Malenko, Man was amazing at technical wrestling. I'd say he's one of the best wrestlers ever.
|
|
|
Post by Hendrix83 on May 27, 2014 21:51:06 GMT -5
Bret Hart. All of them. But seriously, try: - Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart (WMX)
- British Bulldog vs. Owen Hart (Monday Night Raw 03/03/97)
- Ricky Steamboat vs. Ric Flair (Not sure which. I think it was 2 out of 3 falls)
- Eddie Guerrero vs. Dean Malenko (WCW or ECW)
- Bret Hart vs. Mr. Perfect (KOTR '93)
- Rob Van Dam vs. Jerry Lynn (ECW Living Dangerously or Hardcore Heaven, '99.) I know it's not a purists technical match but these two put on masterpieces of pro wrestling
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 18:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2014 22:11:27 GMT -5
Bret Hart vs Owen Hart at WMX was the first to come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect25 on May 31, 2014 0:44:32 GMT -5
Bret vs Perfect Summerslam 91 Bret vs PErfect KOTR 93 Bret vs Owen WMX Angle vs Lesnar WM19
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jun 1, 2014 0:17:27 GMT -5
And once again.... I'm ignored...
And so it goes....
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 18:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2014 4:35:25 GMT -5
Phil...mate...what do you expect here? Seriously?
|
|
Devilkiller
Main Eventer
WFWF. Go see about it.
Joined on: Mar 17, 2012 16:49:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,868
|
Post by Devilkiller on Jun 2, 2014 6:54:42 GMT -5
I just wanted to say I just got around to watching all of them and saved Bret/Owen for last, and I must say it is the best match I've seen. Thank you guys.
|
|
|
Post by 0,Y on Jun 2, 2014 15:28:30 GMT -5
Edge vs Angle from Judgment Day 2002 was pretty good as well.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jun 3, 2014 10:33:05 GMT -5
And once again.... I'm ignored... And so it goes.... 90% of fans don't want to, and aren't interested in watching wrestling that pre-dates their existence. Right, wrong, like it or not, that is just how it is. You should recognize that your level of fandom is extreme and outside of the norm. Outside of finding other "golden age" wrestling fans, you aren't going to get much if any response. Opinions on the greatest technical match are all subjective anyway, there is no right or wrong answer especially when people can't even agree on what technical wrestling even is.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jun 3, 2014 10:52:45 GMT -5
And once again.... I'm ignored... And so it goes.... 90% of fans don't want to, and aren't interested in watching wrestling that pre-dates their existence. Right, wrong, like it or not, that is just how it is. You should recognize that your level of fandom is extreme and outside of the norm. Outside of finding other "golden age" wrestling fans, you aren't going to get much if any response. Opinions on the greatest technical match are all subjective anyway, there is no right or wrong answer especially when people can't even agree on what technical wrestling even is. I apologize. I just don't see the logical consistency in saying something is there best of "all time," when you don't know of the other possible answers from other time periods. See what I mean? Secondly, the textbook definition of "Technical Wrestling," is that said phrase is a synonym(always misspell that word) of "Authentic Wrestling." The original means of making money in Wrestling was to convince every last man, women, & lollipop licking youngster that what they were watching was a legitimate sporting contest. The better a match accomplishes this objective while taking the crowd on a figurative "emotional joy ride," the stronger it's claim to greatness. Secondly, I hope I'm not acting arrogantly, by taking your statement about my feelings on the subject as a positive. A sign that my study & participation in Pro-Wrestling is out of sincere appreciation for it, as opposed to pseudo-intellectualism. Which I was guilty of in the past.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jun 3, 2014 11:15:33 GMT -5
90% of fans don't want to, and aren't interested in watching wrestling that pre-dates their existence. Right, wrong, like it or not, that is just how it is. You should recognize that your level of fandom is extreme and outside of the norm. Outside of finding other "golden age" wrestling fans, you aren't going to get much if any response. Opinions on the greatest technical match are all subjective anyway, there is no right or wrong answer especially when people can't even agree on what technical wrestling even is. I apologize. I just don't see the logical consistency in saying something is there best of "all time," when you don't know of the other possible answers from other time periods. See what I mean? Secondly, the textbook definition of "Technical Wrestling," is that said phrase is a synonym(always misspell that word) of "Authentic Wrestling." The original means of making money in Wrestling was to convince every last man, women, & lollipop licking youngster that what they were watching was a legitimate sporting contest. The better a match accomplishes this objective while taking the crowd on a figurative "emotional joy ride," the stronger it's claim to greatness. Secondly, I hope I'm not acting arrogantly, by taking your statement about my feelings on the subject as a positive. A sign that my study & participation in Pro-Wrestling is out of sincere appreciation for it, as opposed to pseudo-intellectualism. Which I was guilty of in the past. I believe that you are passionate about it not being rude. Wrestling then and wrestling now are almost completely different. Trying to compare them against each other is almost impossible. I tend to think comparisons are better left within their own eras. Same with legit sports like baseball and football. Competition and expectations were different and so was the world. Sure all-time is thrown around in a very general way. And going by the literal definition, you are correct. But by that literal definition, how can you make a judgement unless you have personally seen every single wrestling match ever? I have been watching wrestling for 30 years. And even the wrestling I started out watching is completely different from what we have today. The fact that "technical match" has to even be specified is proof of that. People love to compare things. But for something with a long history, perfectly accurate comparisons are almost impossible. In the end, all people can do is answer based on the knowledge that they do have. Which in this case, especially on this forum, is going to mostly be from the attitude era to today. While I understand your personal issues contribute a lot to how your thoughts are expressed, a lot of others do not. So by somewhat dismissing the majority of answers because they didn't consider every era to your standards is what rubs people the wrong way. I think remembering that your level of interest and dedication is at the very end of the bell curve is very important and will help relate to others here better. Instead of, "you should all think this way", phrasing as "I think this way, and here is why" would come across better and help bridge some of your communcation issues here. Honestly, I am just trying to help you relate better, and knowing your audience will help a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jun 3, 2014 12:37:57 GMT -5
I apologize. I just don't see the logical consistency in saying something is there best of "all time," when you don't know of the other possible answers from other time periods. See what I mean? Secondly, the textbook definition of "Technical Wrestling," is that said phrase is a synonym(always misspell that word) of "Authentic Wrestling." The original means of making money in Wrestling was to convince every last man, women, & lollipop licking youngster that what they were watching was a legitimate sporting contest. The better a match accomplishes this objective while taking the crowd on a figurative "emotional joy ride," the stronger it's claim to greatness. Secondly, I hope I'm not acting arrogantly, by taking your statement about my feelings on the subject as a positive. A sign that my study & participation in Pro-Wrestling is out of sincere appreciation for it, as opposed to pseudo-intellectualism. Which I was guilty of in the past. I believe that you are passionate about it not being rude. Wrestling then and wrestling now are almost completely different. Trying to compare them against each other is almost impossible. I tend to think comparisons are better left within their own eras. Same with legit sports like baseball and football. Competition and expectations were different and so was the world. Sure all-time is thrown around in a very general way. And going by the literal definition, you are correct. But by that literal definition, how can you make a judgement unless you have personally seen every single wrestling match ever? I have been watching wrestling for 30 years. And even the wrestling I started out watching is completely different from what we have today. The fact that "technical match" has to even be specified is proof of that. People love to compare things. But for something with a long history, perfectly accurate comparisons are almost impossible. In the end, all people can do is answer based on the knowledge that they do have. Which in this case, especially on this forum, is going to mostly be from the attitude era to today. While I understand your personal issues contribute a lot to how your thoughts are expressed, a lot of others do not. So by somewhat dismissing the majority of answers because they didn't consider every era to your standards is what rubs people the wrong way. I think remembering that your level of interest and dedication is at the very end of the bell curve is very important and will help relate to others here better. Instead of, "you should all think this way", phrasing as "I think this way, and here is why" would come across better and help bridge some of your communcation issues here. Honestly, I am just trying to help you relate better, and knowing your audience will help a lot. Your inquiry about possessing all-encompassing knowledge of the unwritten list of every match in history, is an extension of my quandary. Most fans speak of these broad concepts rather colloquially, but such ideas give the common fan an amazing opportunity. The opportunity to discover something new, to potentially alter fragments of perception about wrestling by outsiders, & it's fan base. In response to your closing statement, I thought I was presenting the thought process in an expository manner. Explaining the serious need for critical thinking about such a concept. I apologize. While I don't benefit from disagreeing outright, I do have a question about your stance on them differences of respective time periods. The goal of Professional Wrestling has remained the from a fundamental stand-point, with each new generation building on that goal & achieving that goal by a multitude of means. While it is predominantly a subjective issue, there are a few ways to compare eras in wrestling, & almost any other human practice objectively. How well does the match stand up to the criteria? Did the techniques make sense in relation to the wrestlers in the match? Were the unsuccessful techniques "Misses" or "Botched spots?" Those are just a trio of them types of questions I'm referencing. Thank you for talking to me by the way. If you had to describe my standards, what would you say? I ask because I don't know what I consider my standards.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jun 3, 2014 13:01:28 GMT -5
I believe that you are passionate about it not being rude. Wrestling then and wrestling now are almost completely different. Trying to compare them against each other is almost impossible. I tend to think comparisons are better left within their own eras. Same with legit sports like baseball and football. Competition and expectations were different and so was the world. Sure all-time is thrown around in a very general way. And going by the literal definition, you are correct. But by that literal definition, how can you make a judgement unless you have personally seen every single wrestling match ever? I have been watching wrestling for 30 years. And even the wrestling I started out watching is completely different from what we have today. The fact that "technical match" has to even be specified is proof of that. People love to compare things. But for something with a long history, perfectly accurate comparisons are almost impossible. In the end, all people can do is answer based on the knowledge that they do have. Which in this case, especially on this forum, is going to mostly be from the attitude era to today. While I understand your personal issues contribute a lot to how your thoughts are expressed, a lot of others do not. So by somewhat dismissing the majority of answers because they didn't consider every era to your standards is what rubs people the wrong way. I think remembering that your level of interest and dedication is at the very end of the bell curve is very important and will help relate to others here better. Instead of, "you should all think this way", phrasing as "I think this way, and here is why" would come across better and help bridge some of your communcation issues here. Honestly, I am just trying to help you relate better, and knowing your audience will help a lot. Your inquiry about possessing all-encompassing knowledge of the unwritten list of every match in history, is an extension of my quandary. Most fans speak of these broad concepts rather colloquially, but such ideas give the common fan an amazing opportunity. The opportunity to discover something new, to potentially alter fragments of perception about wrestling by outsiders, & it's fan base. In response to your closing statement, I thought I was presenting the thought process in an expository manner. Explaining the serious need for critical thinking about such a concept. I apologize. While I don't benefit from disagreeing outright, I do have a question about your stance on them differences of respective time periods. The goal of Professional Wrestling has remained the from a fundamental stand-point, with each new generation building on that goal & achieving that goal by a multitude of means. While it is predominantly a subjective issue, there are a few ways to compare eras in wrestling, & almost any other human practice objectively. How well does the match stand up to the criteria? Did the techniques make sense in relation to the wrestlers in the match? Were the unsuccessful techniques "Misses" or "Botched spots?" Those are just a trio of them types of questions I'm referencing. Thank you for talking to me by the way. If you had to describe my standards, what would you say? I ask because I don't know what I consider my standards. Honestly, to me the main goal of organized professional wrestling has been to "make money." And as Vince or other promoters have shown, they will change or do anything to meet that goal. More wrestlers now are acrobats more than legit tough guys working a scripted outcome. Asking someone who grew up on the attitude era to watch Frank Gotch and compare them is unfair to both items being viewed. Just like asking an 80 year old man to compare the same. Very few people possess the ability to remove their bias and experiences from the equation to make an educated or accurate comparison, so they don't. They compare what they know and are familiar with. As far as your standards, it just seems you hold other people to a very high expectation of history and knowledge equal to your own and get frustrated when that expectation isn't met or is dismissed and ignored. As far as all of the questions, I am at work, and wouldn't know where to begin to wrap my brain around them.
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jun 3, 2014 13:06:54 GMT -5
Your inquiry about possessing all-encompassing knowledge of the unwritten list of every match in history, is an extension of my quandary. Most fans speak of these broad concepts rather colloquially, but such ideas give the common fan an amazing opportunity. The opportunity to discover something new, to potentially alter fragments of perception about wrestling by outsiders, & it's fan base. In response to your closing statement, I thought I was presenting the thought process in an expository manner. Explaining the serious need for critical thinking about such a concept. I apologize. While I don't benefit from disagreeing outright, I do have a question about your stance on them differences of respective time periods. The goal of Professional Wrestling has remained the from a fundamental stand-point, with each new generation building on that goal & achieving that goal by a multitude of means. While it is predominantly a subjective issue, there are a few ways to compare eras in wrestling, & almost any other human practice objectively. How well does the match stand up to the criteria? Did the techniques make sense in relation to the wrestlers in the match? Were the unsuccessful techniques "Misses" or "Botched spots?" Those are just a trio of them types of questions I'm referencing. Thank you for talking to me by the way. If you had to describe my standards, what would you say? I ask because I don't know what I consider my standards. Honestly, to me the main goal of organized professional wrestling has been to "make money." And as Vince or other promoters have shown, they will change or do anything to meet that goal. More wrestlers now are acrobats more than legit tough guys working a scripted outcome. Asking someone who grew up on the attitude era to watch Frank Gotch and compare them is unfair to both items being viewed. Just like asking an 80 year old man to compare the same. Very few people possess the ability to remove their bias and experiences from the equation to make an educated or accurate comparison, so they don't. They compare what they know and are familiar with. As far as your standards, it just seems you hold other people to a very high expectation of history and knowledge equal to your own and get frustrated when that expectation isn't met or is dismissed and ignored. As far as all of the questions, I am at work, and wouldn't know where to begin to wrap my brain around them. That would be hard even for me, considering the fact that no film of Gotch in a match still exist. You truly are deserving of being a moderator. You have delightfully, informative insight.
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on Jun 11, 2014 3:50:43 GMT -5
I believe that you are passionate about it not being rude. Wrestling then and wrestling now are almost completely different. Trying to compare them against each other is almost impossible. I tend to think comparisons are better left within their own eras. Same with legit sports like baseball and football. Competition and expectations were different and so was the world. Sure all-time is thrown around in a very general way. And going by the literal definition, you are correct. But by that literal definition, how can you make a judgement unless you have personally seen every single wrestling match ever? I have been watching wrestling for 30 years. And even the wrestling I started out watching is completely different from what we have today. The fact that "technical match" has to even be specified is proof of that. People love to compare things. But for something with a long history, perfectly accurate comparisons are almost impossible. In the end, all people can do is answer based on the knowledge that they do have. Which in this case, especially on this forum, is going to mostly be from the attitude era to today. While I understand your personal issues contribute a lot to how your thoughts are expressed, a lot of others do not. So by somewhat dismissing the majority of answers because they didn't consider every era to your standards is what rubs people the wrong way. I think remembering that your level of interest and dedication is at the very end of the bell curve is very important and will help relate to others here better. Instead of, "you should all think this way", phrasing as "I think this way, and here is why" would come across better and help bridge some of your communcation issues here. Honestly, I am just trying to help you relate better, and knowing your audience will help a lot. Your inquiry about possessing all-encompassing knowledge of the unwritten list of every match in history, is an extension of my quandary. Most fans speak of these broad concepts rather colloquially, but such ideas give the common fan an amazing opportunity. The opportunity to discover something new, to potentially alter fragments of perception about wrestling by outsiders, & it's fan base. In response to your closing statement, I thought I was presenting the thought process in an expository manner. Explaining the serious need for critical thinking about such a concept. I apologize. While I don't benefit from disagreeing outright, I do have a question about your stance on them differences of respective time periods. The goal of Professional Wrestling has remained the from a fundamental stand-point, with each new generation building on that goal & achieving that goal by a multitude of means. While it is predominantly a subjective issue, there are a few ways to compare eras in wrestling, & almost any other human practice objectively. How well does the match stand up to the criteria? Did the techniques make sense in relation to the wrestlers in the match? Were the unsuccessful techniques "Misses" or "Botched spots?" Those are just a trio of them types of questions I'm referencing. Thank you for talking to me by the way. If you had to describe my standards, what would you say? I ask because I don't know what I consider my standards. Flair VS. Steamboat - Clash of the Champions
|
|
|
Post by Turnbuckle Zealot(Phil) on Jun 11, 2014 11:37:14 GMT -5
Your inquiry about possessing all-encompassing knowledge of the unwritten list of every match in history, is an extension of my quandary. Most fans speak of these broad concepts rather colloquially, but such ideas give the common fan an amazing opportunity. The opportunity to discover something new, to potentially alter fragments of perception about wrestling by outsiders, & it's fan base. In response to your closing statement, I thought I was presenting the thought process in an expository manner. Explaining the serious need for critical thinking about such a concept. I apologize. While I don't benefit from disagreeing outright, I do have a question about your stance on them differences of respective time periods. The goal of Professional Wrestling has remained the from a fundamental stand-point, with each new generation building on that goal & achieving that goal by a multitude of means. While it is predominantly a subjective issue, there are a few ways to compare eras in wrestling, & almost any other human practice objectively. How well does the match stand up to the criteria? Did the techniques make sense in relation to the wrestlers in the match? Were the unsuccessful techniques "Misses" or "Botched spots?" Those are just a trio of them types of questions I'm referencing. Thank you for talking to me by the way. If you had to describe my standards, what would you say? I ask because I don't know what I consider my standards. Flair VS. Steamboat - Clash of the Champions That match shows ideal examples of everything I'm discussing. Thanks Flair Forever!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 18:20:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2014 11:45:47 GMT -5
Beniot Vs. Angle HBK Vs. Y2J Angle Vs. Guerrio Guerrio Vs. Beniot
|
|