Cross Face Chicken Wing

I'm sure he did write differently for the paper. But man, you'd think sentence structure and paragraph breaks would come naturally to a reporter. I don't read Meltzer for his prose, so I really don't care. It just makes me scratch my head sometimes when I'm paging through old WONs.

Meltzer worked at a newspaper didn't he? His editors and copy desk were probably kept real busy editing his copy.

Sounds like another good topic for a thread. I could give two shits about the crowd. If they're too stupid to recognize and appreciate good wrestling, the hell with 'em.

We do look at things in-depth. Way in-depth. I now know that who is better discussions typically concern in-ring work and not other factors. By introducing other factors, we are drilling another hole, instead of drilling deeper into the hole that is already drilled. I see the point you guys are making. That said, I do think mic work needs to be incorporated into the Bret/Flair discussion, even if it might not make sense in who is better type of discussions between other wrestlers. To me, the persona and character that Flair built through his mic work is a huge part of who he is. It's how most people recognize and appreciate Flair. My non-wrestling fan friends and co-workers are always quoting Ric Flair or refering back to his promos. There's another factor. When engaged in these types of discussions, I try to take the temperature of the casual fan or ex-wrestling watcher when forming an objective opinion on who is "better." There I go driling another hole again...

I'm the one that brought up mic work in the Bret vs. Flair thread. Perhaps I haven't been hanging around wrestling boards long enough to realize that there is an unwritten rule stating that all "Who is better" arguments center on in-ring work and nothing else. That doesn't make any sense to me, but I guess that's the rule. If you want to talk about who is a better in-ring worker, then title the thread "who is a better in-ring worker." If you want to talk about who structures a match better, then title the thread "who structures a match better." If you want to talk about who is more repetitive, then title the thread "who is more repetitive." If you want to talk about who is better, then that should include everything already I already mentioned, plus mic work and other stuff. At least that's the way it should be. Not factoring in mic work into a "who is better" wrestling discussion is like not factoring defensive ability into a "who is better" discussion about two baseball players. Doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I'm picking nits now. Back to Jerry's original question: the obvious answer is all of the above. You'd like to not hold it against a guy if he's thrown into a bunch of bad angles, but the great ones can turn chicken shit into chicken soup if they're good on the mic and can work.

How about stand-up comedy? Most comedians come up with about an hour of material and do that same hour every night of a tour, sometimes twice per night in the same town. Some of them even have catch phrases or another type of schtick that is all over the mainstream and known by most people, whether they're fans of comedy or not. Yet when the comedian busts out the catch phrase or schtick during his/her live act, the auidence eats it up, even if most of them have basically heard it before.

The football game being a blowout caused me to flip on Raw for the first time in forever last night. I try to give the modern product another shot about once per year, but always end up hating it. CM Punk is the one guy that always holds my interest, and he was great again last night. Last time I tried getting interested in the modern product, Punk was a face and he was great. Obviously, he's a heel now and he's even better in that role. Just an all-around pro. (Side note: Why do the interview segments have to be so damn long? At least there was a Rock bottom to cap off last night's marathon gabfest.) Anyway, guys like Punk keep me interested. I don't even watch the modern product, but last night I turned it on for the final hour and Punk sucked me in for the entire hour. As I countine watching more and more 80s and 90s footage that I missed growing up, I love having those hours like I had watching Punk last night, seeing extremely talented wrestlers at the top of their game just firing on all cylinders. Flair, Lawler, Rose, Funk, Tsuruta, Heenan, Bock, Steamboat, Savage, Eaton, etc., etc. Mix in those moments with the overall goofiness and the so-bad-it's-good element of pro wrestling, and that's why I'll always be a fan.

Midnight Rockers vs. Rose/Sommers seemed pretty damn intense to me.

790. Eric Embry *runs for cover*

Why are we ignoring promo work? Unless I missed it, wasn't the purpose of this thread to discuss who is better, not who is better in-ring or who structures matches in a way that makes the most sense? Having a general debate about "who is better" and not factoring in promo work is a waste of time. It's fun and all to pick apart a guy's matches because he does this or that too often or in places where it doesn't make sense. But in the grand scheme of a "who is better" discussion, it's a small piece of the pie.

Instead of swearing at each other, let's talk more about the notion that Bret isn't repetitive. Even 12-year-old nonsmart fan me thought Hart was VERY repetitive. Ohtani laid out some of his oft-repeated spots a few posts ago. I'll add the second-rope elbow and side russian leg sweep. Bret seemed to always go out of his way to get his signature spots in. If you prefer Bret over Flair, that's cool. But don't tell me that Bret wasn't repetitive. (For the record, I love Bret, but he is not even in the same ballpark as Flair. Even if Flair never wrestled, the Nature Boy would get my vote on his promo ability alone.)

I tend to like my wrestling "serious" (which is probably an entirely different discussion) and I always liked Brett because he seemed to take things so seriously. His character, his in-ring work, his promos, everything seemed focused and serious. There wasn't any pissing around. However, he seemed a little to scripted at times. That's what keeps him from being a GOAT candidate in my opinion.

I wonder if he'll be a better mayor than member of The Four Horsemen? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/s...0,4897703.story

You're a wrestling agnostic. There are sports agnostics as well, people who love a particular sport(s), but don't cheer for a specific team.

I am not Will, but I wanted to chime in. Back in the day, it seemed rare for smaller guys to get labeled as brawlers. Unless you were big, had some sort of fanatical look, or both, you got labeled as a technician. It seemed like "technician" was another way to say a guy who wasn't a big hulking menace was a good wrestler. When you look at Dibiase, you don't immeidately think, "Uh oh. This guy could kick my ass." I also think some of this could go back to the "Who gives a shit what wrestlers say" discussion. I know I don't really give a shit what Duggan has to say about whether Dibiase is a technical wrestler or brawler. He probably barely knows the difference. If Dibiase had long frizzly hair, face paint, a crazed look in his eye, and wrestled his exact same style, Duggan would probably say he's an all-time great brawler.

1. Terry Funk. I love Terry Funk, but feel like I've only seen a fraction of Terry Funk stuff that's out there. He's one of those of those guys that I already enjoy, but it would sill feel like a revelation if I really sat down and dove into watching more Terry Funk matches. 2. Kawada. Most of my Kawada viewing has come from the the 80s AJ set. He was great, and now I feel like I need more Kawada. 3. Jerry Lawler. I watched the Memphis set a few years ago and haven't seen much Lawler since. That needs to change. 4. Ric Flair. My first three picks are guys that I feel I haven't seen enough of and want to see more. My last two are guys that I have seen a lot of and will always want to watch no matter what. Flair is an obvious choice, but c'mon, it's Flair. I'm always going to want to watch Flair. And he's got so much stuff that it's fun to discover new wrinkles to his work every now and then. 5. Kamala. Kamala will always be in my top 5. He cracks me up. I split a gut whenever Kamala is on my TV or iPad screen. When I was in high school, I wanted to be an NFL defensive lineman just so I could make Kamala's "tummy pat" my sack-the-QB dance. My top 3 will change frequently. I don't see Flair and Kamala ever losing their spots.

Austin's little rapid fire punches from a mount really did look bad more often than not. They did not look as bad as the average Brody shot, let alone the average Brody "bump." Don't even get me started on when Brody had to eat offense from someone and he would do anything possible evade something bordering on contact. Please don't insult the skill of bumping by referring to whatever the hell it was that Brody did as bumping. Thank you.

I've watched Mid-South, Memphis, Texas, All Japan and AWA. Here's how I'd rank them. 1. All Japan. You won't find a better 15 discs of kick ass wrestling anywhere. A lot of this stuff was new to me, so that probably helped. 2. Mid-South. Everything about Mid-South seemed so well thought out. Very professional and very fun. 3. AWA. Very surprised at the quality of the work rate in AWA. Eye-opening. I became a wrestling fan in 88-89 thanks to the AWA (I was 7 and it was my hometown promotion) and WWF, so there's some nostalgia here too. 4. Memphis. Great stuff. Finished fourth because the "southerness" would get to me every now and then. 5. Texas. Von Erich burnout and not getting Eric Embry makes this finish fifth. All of these sets were amazing. A big thank you to everyone who worked on them. Please keep them going.

I love Jumbo. He seemed to disdain whoever he was in the ring with. A lot of guys try too hard to convey hatred and intensity. Jumbo always maintained an even level of disdain ("WTF are you even doing in the same ring as me" type of attitude) and only really cranked up the hatred and rage when necessary. Tenryu sometimes seems like he just ate a big Thanksgiving meal and is feeling too lethargic to work. He's grown on me, though, and I kind of get the whole stone-faced intensity thing.

This is WAR MOTHERFUCKER!!!! And the reason I created this thread I wanted to see if a name came up that inspired me to create another wrestler thread. I loaded my gun to fire the first shot in this war, then I realized that Eric Embry isn't worth fighting about.

Eric Embry. EVERYBODY slurps on this guy whenever Texas wrestling comes up. I just don't get it.

You sure they gimmicked the time? I watched this match on the treadmill, with my timer set to an hour. As soon as the treadmill stopped, the match also ended.

Regarding his bad grammar and stumbling over words: It helps him come across as genuine (probably because he genuinely does have bad grammar and stumbles over words). It works when he's yelling and stammaring as the crazy guy heel (how many crazy lunatics never stumble over a word or always use proper grammar?). It works when he's the face (makes me think of my uncles, who are crazy in a charming way). It works when he's being something in-between (makes him seem grizzled, tired but still plugging away). That's how it comes across to me, anyway.