JRGoldman

https://soundcloud.com/prowrestlingonly/super-apuestas-podcast-super-porky-vs-rey-escorpion-101813 After a brief post WrestleMania hiatus, SAP is back with JR Goldberg and a rotating cast of guest hosts. This week Sam from the "We Don't Know Wrestling" podcast joins to discuss one of the most unique matches in all of professional wrestling. After some listener questions and history, Sam and JR dive in and try to explain what exactly about this match they love, where it fits in to the wrestling landscape at large, and what sort of fan might enjoy this match if they haven't seen it before. Let us know your thoughts! Questions and comments are always appreciated!

I had a bunch of fun watching and talking about this match. Thanks if you listened! Did anyone have any thoughts regarding the match or the podcast, or any requests for future episodes?

This was another really fun episode to record, and I was relieved that we seemingly had stuff to say about modern lucha in addition to classic stuff. What did people think?

Thanks, everyone! I had so much fun doing this. I know Elliott has suggested a few matches, but if there is something you'd like to hear discussed in a similar fashion, let us know!

It is mystifying to me that people still respond to Stro, the most obvious troll on the board, and not even a particularly interesting or clever one. To clarify, before anyone says anything: it's not that he disagrees about a well regarded match, it's that he continually and willingly ignores people who respond and give him evidence, which inevitably leads to those people conflict.

Pynchon is terrible Some people in this thread would say that means I have made the perfect analogy.

Why are people seemingly so opposed to the idea of "hard work" involved in the enjoyment of something? People say lucha being harder to grasp at first as though it's a criticism and a black mark on the style. Gravity's Rainbow requires more hard work to enjoy than Harry Potter does, but that doesn't make it less of an accomplishment or mean that it has less merit.

There has been a lot of thought provoking discussion in this thread. Except by Stro, who has seemingly decided that the behavior that got him rightfully banned from DVDVR deserved an unnecessary sequel.

So throughout the process, Grimmas has stated he would be open to publishing results using different voting critera. I know a lot of people have come up with suggestions and interesting spins, but they are seemingly scattered throughout the different threads I thought it might be nice to have a centralized thread. My suggestion would be to see what the overall top 100 would look like if only votes for people's top 10 counted, like the actual Sight&Sound poll. I would also ask that Grimmas has already shot down any sort of "PWO Posters Only" list, so it's probably safe not to request something like that, considering that conversation has already happened and doesn't need to be rehashed.

I think Sami Callihan could have a Chris Hero type run where he stays on the indies for the next 10 years, but as people start to make their ballots, they realize that he's been a top 5-10 guy every year since 2015. Depending on how popular NJPW stays, I think Ospreay could see a huge increase in votes. Roman Reigns is probably the best bet. I think the key to something like this is picking someone who is going to stay in one place for an extended period, because leaving a federation and starting over somewhere else creates a necessary loss of momentum. It's really hard to go from one place to another and not stumble a little while they figure out how best to use the performer.

Parv, I understand your point but I think it's a bit of a false equivalency. You wouldn't teach a survey course to a group of undergrads and then seriously expect them to contribute to a deconstruction of the Western Canon. Or, if they did, I would listen to their ideas with an open mind but I'd have to take them with a grain or two of salt. If someone has two years to get ready for this project, and wants desperately to participate, but can't find the requisite time to get a firm grasp on many candidates that others are considering for a top spot, I think we can reserve the right to be quizzical of their process.

Parv, you address the influence of people like Dylan and Matt and others in promoting "niche picks", but do you feel that you were influential in on the other side of the pendulum? For example, you weren't the high vote on Ted. Do you feel as though your defense of your admitted favorites created a bias that was equally present but perhaps less noticeable because the influence was leaning toward workers from a period that the silent majority was already going to represent (although perhaps not as highly in some cases)?

I'm high on the Khali match.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I feel as though he would have gotten some love. He was in a lot of people's match of the decade. I guess it's sort of noteworthy and interesting that two of John Cena's five best matches were against people that went un-nominated. That feels like a credit to Cena's skill that couldn't really be addressed until after we saw how this all shook out.

Did Umaga not get nominated, or am I just unable to use a search function effectively?