Loss

I think all three of these will do extremely well in the final voting so I have to disagree with your assessment that people are underappreciating the early stuff. In fact, with a few exceptions and disagreements, most people have had high praise for most of the matches talked about so far. To clarify, by early stuff, I mean 1981-1983, but mainly the early Bob Roop matches from Shreveport. Not so much the Houston matches or the matches I mentioned.

Ric Flair to retire and stay retired, and no more deaths.

I thought they were good matches. I think the best overall match was the second one on the set, but I thought the one in Houston from July was awesome after the ring ropes broke and they improvised and used the turnbuckle as a weapon. The match was pretty dull before that, though. I've liked everything on this set so far, even the lower-ranked matches. I've just liked some more than others. The only bad thing I can really say about the Magnum/DiBiase series is that the blood really felt gratuitous and unnecessary, and it feels Dusty Rhodes-level unnecessary to do it in every single match you have. I also felt like the Houston match, with early parts built around DiBiase trying to ram his opponents' head into something and being blocked, felt more like WWF DiBiase than Mid South DiBiase.

I've watched all of the first two discs and thought I'd share how I have everything ranked so far. I do plan on watching the whole set twice, because I tend to overrate stuff I like the first time I watch it. But right now, here's where I have everything: 1. Rock N Roll Express & Hacksaw Duggan vs. Midnight Express & Ernie Ladd (6/8/84) 2. Mr. Wrestling II & Magnum T.A. vs. Butch Reed & Jim Neidhart (Cage Match) (12/25/83) 3. Ted DiBiase vs. Hacksaw Duggan (Street Fight) (7/29/83) 4. Mr. Olympia vs. Chavo Guerrerro (6/24/83) 5. Butch Reed vs. Skip Young (9/23/84) 6. Junkyard Dog & Mr. Olympia vs. Ted Dibiase & Matt Borne (Loser Leaves Town) (10/27/82) 7. Rock N Roll Express & Hacksaw Duggan vs. Midnight Express & Ernie Ladd (7/2/84) 8. The Fantastics vs. Chavo & Hector Guerrero (10/12/84) 9. Mr. Olympia vs. Bob Roop (7/15/82) 10. One Man Gang vs. Buck Robley (Lumberjack Match) (9/15/82) 11. Dusty Rhodes & Jim Duggan vs. Butch Reed & Hercules Hernandez (8/19/84) 12. The Fantastics & Hacksaw Duggan vs. Midnight Express & Jim Cornette (7/20/84) 13. Magnum TA vs. Ted DiBiase (No DQ) (Tulsa 5/27/84) 14. The Fantastics vs. Midnight Express (OKC 8/9/84) 15. Bob Roop vs. Mike George (12/16/81) 16. Midnight Express vs. Bill Dundee & Porkchop Cash (4/6/84) 17. Magnum TA v. Ted DiBiase (7/6/84) 18. Mr. Wrestling II & Magnum T.A. vs. Midnight Express (2/10/84) 19. Junkyard Dog & Mr. Olympia vs. Ted DiBiase & Hacksaw Duggan (8/18/82) 20. Nick Bockwinkel vs. Dusty Rhodes (5/20/83) 21. Midnight Express vs. Bill Watts & Stagger Lee (4/22/84) 22. Buddy Landel & Butch Reed vs. Rock N Roll Express (3/28/84) 23. Midnight Express vs. Rock N Roll Express (No DQ: Tag Titles vs. $50,000) (5/23/84) 24. The Fantastics vs. Midnight Express (No DQ) (9/28/84) 25. Magnum TA vs. Ted DiBiase (No DQ) (OKC 5/27/84) 26. Brickhouse Brown & Master Gee vs. Butch Reed & Ernie Ladd (10/21/84) 27. Mr. Wrestling II & Junkyard Dog vs. Matt Borne & Ted DiBiase (2/16/83) 28. Mr. Olympia vs. Paul Orndorff (2/3/82) 29. Bob Roop vs. Ted DiBiase (4/2/82) 30. Butch Reed v. Iron Sheik (4/8/83) 31. Junkyard Dog vs. Nick Bockwinkel (6/11/82) 32. Killer Khan v. Chris Adams (9/9/84) 33. Adrian Street vs. Chris Adams (10/10/84) 34. Stagger Lee & Mr. Olympia vs. Ted DiBiase & Matt Borne (12/18/82)

For the record, I like Bryan Danielson. I just want to let him accomplish a little more before I rate him that high.

Danielson?

Danielson?

It's quite the set for sure. I realize the latter stuff is what's famous and what people most associate with Mid South, but I do think there's maybe too much eagerness to get there quickly, to a point where some are sort of underappreciating the early stuff. At this point, I've watched all of Disc 1 except for the last two matches, and feel pretty good with how things are shaping up thus far. The big standout to me is that II/TA vs Reed/Neidhart cage match, a pretty awesome 4 1/2-star match I never would have expected, with Neidhart coming up with some really awesome methods of ref distraction, and two really, really well done FIPs. Magnum was still a little physically awkward and green here, but it's a match built on downplaying that instead of making it a focal point of the match, like you often see in vet vs. new guy matches in modern WWE. The heels are really great (seriously, who knew Neidhart could be this good?) and Butch Reed is the lost great worker of the 80s. The cage isn't a major factor in the match, but I think I like that because it feels less gimmicky as a result. Wrestling matches are wrestling matches first and foremost, are they not? It also works to get over the two or three cage spots they do pretty well. I like the idea of putting together a cage match with a vet and green guy on one side, and two heels in their physical prime on the other, with the idea that they would only do three cage-related spots and focus more on getting the match over. It worked really well. Chavo/Olympia was also really good. Olympia reminds me of Steve Austin in terms of his body language and in how he carries himself, but moreso the WCW version of Austin than the WWF version. Really solid looking basic matwork from him, and the spot where he slipped something on his foot to dropkick Chavo was great. Also, Chavo's bridging German suplex at the end was fantastic. Also loved the post-match brawl. Really fast-paced energetic stuff with a strong heel/face dynamic and it stands out in the context of the time because it wasn't typical. I'm not quite as high on it as most, but still enjoyed it. Also, both in terms of the angle and the match, it doesn't get much better than JYD/Olympia vs DiBiase/Borne, a match that I think will also do pretty well on my overall ballot. To me, this is really what a TV main event should be -- super hot crowd, great action, plenty of time given but not too much time and a hot angle to close it all up. I knew the finish, but even watching and not knowing the finish, you have to be watching this thinking something special is at stake, which is sort of a lost art.

There is a new password-protected folder called Projects and Lists. If you would like the password to this folder, please make your request in the normal Access Request folder. Thank you.

Chris Jericho also got a #1 vote from someone.

Soon, yes, but not yet.

"Great" is kind of a vague term. I imagine I could have the same opinion of The Big Boss Man as another guy, and I would call him "great" and he wouldn't, just because of different standards we have for using the term. And realistically, this is going to be more apparent when judging something like pro wrestlers, where the art is much lower and the scope (that we have available on tape, anyway) is much smaller than in film or music or something like that. True, but my feeling was that people were focusing at times too much on the word "great" and turning it into a semantics argument during the time of the poll. My definition of great is a wrestler who has had a sustained period in their career (at least a year, and the longer the better) where the majority of their stuff was worth watching for the right reasons. The longer that time frame, the more stuff worth watching, the more they made better those around them, and the more favorable they look compared to their peers, the better. If you raise the bar further than that, there aren't really more than a dozen or so great wrestlers -- Flair, Jumbo, Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Santo, Casas, Liger, Benoit, Guerrero, Funk, Brisco, Lawler and then the list starts to peter out. I think the fact that only two wrestlers appeared on every ballot only strengthens my point. It is a semantics argument. The very definition of the word great for an individual determines how thier ballot is shaped. Your definition that you just gave was at least one year of great in-ring work. I think that is criminally short in determining if a guy was great. It just means he had a great year. Lex Luger is the perfect example. Also, I don't understand how only two wrestlers appearing on every ballot strengthens your argument. If 100 people submit a ballot, 5 contrarian voices can wipe out a ton of wrestlers. Lex Luger, for probably a year or two, if even that, was a great wrestler. Lots of wrestlers haven't even had that much. That doesn't mean there aren't 100 wrestlers better than Luger, especially when you start weighing other factors like that he wasn't at that level for most of his career. I wouldn't rank Luger in a top 100, and I do believe there are more than 100 great wrestlers. That's consistent. Jumbo Tsuruta was better than Barry Windham. Barry Windham was better than Ron Garvin. Does that mean Jumbo was the only great one of the three? Of course not. Over 400 wrestlers received votes among 40-something ballots submitted. There were plenty of wrestlers I didn't vote for that you probably didn't either that for that finished high, and it wasn't because we were being contrarian. Greatest, best, Top 100 ... to me, it's all the same, and it's just a buzzword that has the same general meaning regardless. Again, I have to ask -- what wrestlers in the top 100 would you not consider great?

Ross also has not been part of the creative process since 1995. Come on, do you REALLY think they were trying to find a way to rip off WCW's idea when they came up with this?

Bob Roop vs. Mike George (12/16/81) I really enjoyed this match. Lots of fun matwork and an out of control high knee to wrap things up. Bob Roop is the master of doing Steven Regal WCW TV title defenses before the belt existed or Regal had turned pro. Roop is in three matches on this set -- Mike George, Ted DiBiase and Mr. Olympia are his opponents. It's the only Mike George match on the set, and I don't really have a strong basis of comparison with him, and there are definitely other, probably better singles matches with DiBiase and Olympia on the set. But there's something Roop brings here -- namely that Regal quality of making wrestlers conform to his style and look good doing it -- that makes these sub 10-minute TV studio matches work really well. I'm glad the matches here are of Roop in the studio instead of the arena. I think he's one guy that benefits from the slightly quieter atmosphere, because it's harder to be subtle with a larger crowd. To criticize Roop for not being larger than life charismatic is really missing a point -- he was filling a very specific role, and he was doing it uniquely. I actually prefer DiBiase as a "speaking from experience" wrestling point of view slightly more than Watts, simply because I feel like Watts liked to go a little long-winded at times and was more focused on making his end point than calling the match. It happens at times here and especially in the other studio matches. Watts is talking about world affairs or racquetball or whatever to build up to his big point, but misses several key spots along the way. Watts is great as a soundbyte guy though, and I feel like Jim Ross took the best parts of Watts as an announcer and went further with it. It's probably where Ross's whole "talk in soundbytes" meme that he always says came from. Neeley added a lot here. The ringpost spot had me thinking we were going to see a countout because he was such a stickler for the rules, and we didn't. He got a countout over as a false finish. I don't know that it would have happened the same way with a different ref. It's also important to remember that this is in a TV studio. A note to everyone who keeps mentioning that there are better things to come or that this is a nice exposition -- it's true that there are 40 hours of great wrestling in your possession waiting to be watched. But still, try to savor the early stuff. Roop/George may not compare to some of the later stuff in terms of a hot crowd with hate and blood and just "big" feeling wrestling, but it's still really fun and worth watching. Don't be so eager to get to the great part that you miss some of the really good stuff along the way. I know it's kind of an easy trap to fall into when you look at the matchlist and see what's waiting, because it's epic, but I think it may cause you to overlook some cool stuff among the early years. Mr. Olympia vs. Paul Orndorff (2/3/82) Not as good as the first match, but still worth watching. Context is key for a move like the sleeper. It's easy to get pretty much anything over strong as a finisher if it's presented as something that makes an impact. The sleeper has really only become a major crowd killer in the past 20 years or so, when the WWF eating wrestling alive undid all the education promoters had always done on the impact of holds. You used to hear pretty standard sleeperhold talking points, like that it was outlawed by the LAPD because of the danger inherent in the move, or that it cut off the flow of blood to the brain. It's also all in the selling. Orndorff does a great job with it because it's sold more like a Fujiwara armbar would normally be sold with the guy kicking and fighting and doing everything to get out. I also really like Orndorff's gimmick of being a wrestler who likes to use everyone else's moves with some extra twist to give them his own impact. Watts did a good job selling that at the booth. The second rope clothesline was cool and all, but it felt kinda low impact for me for some reason, and the desperation selling stood out to me more than anything else instead. We see clean finishes pretty much all the time now on TV, so it's easy to overlook, but seeing as many clean finishes as you see on this set between name guys is actually sort of a novelty for its time.

Do you remember that year at the VMAs did that Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen did that self-parody before presenting some award about how The Bodyguard was the greatest movie of all time? Well, these links remind me of that.

I would be completely shocked if Vince McMahon or anyone involved with the creative process in WCW has a clue that "Spin The Wheel, Make The Deal" ever existed. Maybe Michael Hayes or Dusty Rhodes, but they have nothing to do with writing for RAW.

"Great" is kind of a vague term. I imagine I could have the same opinion of The Big Boss Man as another guy, and I would call him "great" and he wouldn't, just because of different standards we have for using the term. And realistically, this is going to be more apparent when judging something like pro wrestlers, where the art is much lower and the scope (that we have available on tape, anyway) is much smaller than in film or music or something like that. True, but my feeling was that people were focusing at times too much on the word "great" and turning it into a semantics argument during the time of the poll. My definition of great is a wrestler who has had a sustained period in their career (at least a year, and the longer the better) where the majority of their stuff was worth watching for the right reasons. The longer that time frame, the more stuff worth watching, the more they made better those around them, and the more favorable they look compared to their peers, the better. If you raise the bar further than that, there aren't really more than a dozen or so great wrestlers -- Flair, Jumbo, Misawa, Kawada, Kobashi, Santo, Casas, Liger, Benoit, Guerrero, Funk, Brisco, Lawler and then the list starts to peter out. I think the fact that only two wrestlers appeared on every ballot only strengthens my point.

I was one of those people, and it wasn't the entire history of pro wrestling, it was televised wrestling if you want to be specific even though alot of people included wrestlers from the pre-taped era. Also, it came down to a point of wrestlers you have seen, not just ones you heard were great. It is also a definition of great. THere are tons of wrestlers I wouldn't call great even if they had great matches. I stand by everything I said then. If great matches don't make a great wrestler, what does? I agree that plenty of wrestlers who aren't great have been in great matches, and I know the point you're getting at, but I'm asking you that because I want to know your definition. I guess the only response I can have to that is to go through everyone ranked in the top 100 and tell me everyone that isn't great and why. The only one I'd really argue would be Kurt Angle, but I doubt anyone who didn't think there were 100 great wrestlers thought there were 99 great wrestlers.

I'm in the camp where I tend to think people overrate Michaels now, but as far as criticism of him during his tag run or singles run pre-1998, I don't get it at all. I don't think he was Flair-level great, but I still think he was pretty awesome and had some terrific matches. Best in the world, or even the US at any point? No, not at all. But he was clearly among the best in his company for about 10 years. It all depends on what standard you're holding him to.

I suspect Jumbo will be more visible on this list if it's ever revised.

Crockett actually did far more damage to Mania than Vince did to Starrcade, but he also screwed himself over in the process. We'll cover that later.