I know from long experience of reading your rants that you don't rate battle royals or midget matches and that there was a spell when you refused to rate (or possibly even watch) Sheepherder/Bushwhacker matches, but I was curious…
Given that you don't rate them, what do you consider to be the gold standard for these types of matches? The sort of match where, if you were to review them (and I understand that you might have to apply different standards), you give them ****+? A lot is made of the midget match from the When Worlds Collide AAA/WCW PPV, for instance and I'm personally a fan of the Sheepherders vs. Nikita and Dr. Death from one of the early Clashes.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
All the best,
That was quite the attention-grabbing e-mail title.
I don't know that I ever said I wouldn't rate Bushwacker matches. They were uniformly terrible as a comedy act, but I have no issues just giving them a DUD and moving on with my life. But I used to be a big fan of the Sheepherders right up until they jumped to the WWF. Had they not gone that route, Paul Heyman probably could have resurrected their career in ECW, in fact.
Midget matches are different, because they're existing in a different universe than the rest of wrestling, with different rules of conduct and different referees who get much more involved. It's like trying to handicap a Globetrotters game.