Loss

It's my understanding that's very much her reputation inside WWE, or at least was at one time. It's been topped many times since, but a lot of that comes from the Charlotte match in NXT, along with her training Ronda Rousey.

I would be interested in you or someone exploring the 1981-1984 period when New Japan was on fire and All Japan was seen as passe, at least according to common legend, and how much Jumbo was emblematic of that dated view. It's sometimes hard to tell how much of that is Dave projecting his own views into his coverage, or if the idea that All Japan was outdated was really prevalent in Japan during that time.

People seem to like his 1970s as the young, athletic standout on the rise and his late 80s/early 90s as the grouchy veteran. It's the in-between that some don't care for, but there's lots to love there. Classics against Flair, Kerry, Brody, Funk and others. To me, you can compare the Kerry and 6/83 Flair matches in particular to just about any match ever, but if people are over slow-building and long world title matches, it is what it is.

It's way too much happening in rapid succession. There's no popping up, but I don't really like the cadence because fans aren't given time to really react to each suplex.

I used to buy into some of the stoic/dull argument, but I don't really now. From what I can gather, most people who don't like 1980-85 Jumbo just don't really like the wrestling style of that era. I'm sure there are exceptions, but are there a lot of people who enjoy early 80s NWA-style wrestling that struggle with Jumbo?

Always weird to me when people retweet and like pro wrestling sequences that I think are actively bad.

I feel like I always understand the point Dave is making on audio, but then again I don't have an agenda. He's definitely not above criticism, but there are a lot of people who actively look for things to be angry about with him.

Not a lot, but there is more than there was in 2016 because of Hidden Gems on the WWE Network. They released a handful of Omni shows in full.

Rich is in theory one of the guys who may have a stronger case now than he did in 2016, if only for the Omni stuff WWE released, but I still don't think he gets all the way there. If we had all the Omni shows that exist on tape, he'd probably easily be a top 100 pick. Not just the Last Battle of Atlanta, but matches with Flair and DiBiase that have shown a little bit more of what he could do. A big part of Rich's appeal was him being such a willing bleeder, which is why a lot of those footage issues exist. It was harder to show bloodbaths on TV. He is basically the prototype for the right way to get a wrestler over as tough to male fans when his primary appeal was to draw women. I think it works against him that he was already on the way down in 1983, at a time he was only 29 years old, but he did seem to have a fun second career too.

A key part of Goldberg clicking was that he was new when he was pushed, so he hadn't previously been slotted. Wrath had been on national TV for years in various roles where he was slotted at a certain level. For every Scott Hall or Steve Austin that has overcome being slotted on national TV for years, wrestling has so many Marc Meros and Buff Bagwells that never did.

I don't see any evidence for Wrath being "super over", but then again, I don't see any evidence that Meng or Fit Finlay ever got over in WCW, either, and their runs seem fairly acclaimed.

Sure. That's why we have to rank wrestlers on what they actually did instead of what they could have done. Every wrestler in contention needs a certain level of push to even register.

I don't see GWE as a place to right wrongs, but I will say that Goldberg showed more raw physical skills and potential to be great than Luger, the Road Warriors, Ultimate Warrior or Nikita Koloff (and arguably, Sting) did in the early stages of their careers. He's the biggest "what if?" in wrestling history for me in terms of how great he could have been in a better environment, with better people to work with, and other stars seeing their mission as to make him look as good as possible and teach him how to work.

Also, it's possible or even likely that Dave has known Charlotte Flair since she was a child.

At least through the end of the Austin era, I think most wrestling had really strong populist themes, and the moral norms and such were based on working class themes. Flair would do vignettes where it was specifically pointed out that even as Americans were tightening their budgets during a recession, he insisted on always flying first class. Dusty spoke of his humble beginnings in almost every promo. Your heels tended to come from wealth and be seen more as spoiled or out of touch with working people, where your babyfaces tended to come more from strong middle class "of the people" roots. I don't think society organizes itself around populism as much anymore, even though economic issues still matter a lot of course. It seems to be more about people who grew up feeling like outcasts or feeling "different" being accepted, loved and represented, and wrestling is moving more in that direction as well.

Pretty much exactly how I see it.

One thing I learned from the yearbook projects and later from my current endeavors is that wrestling really doesn't have bad years. It really doesn't. There is always plenty of great stuff happening somewhere. However, overriding trends happen that are sometimes good and sometimes bad, which is probably something I should explore more in its own thread.

Yes, I would have added it if I had another year of watching in either direction around 1980.

At this point: - Florida 1974-75, 1982-84 - Georgia 1979-80 - Continental 1987-88 - Mid South/UWF 1984-1987 - Memphis 1983-1988, 1990-1993 - WCCW 1983-1985 - WWF/WWE 1980, 1991, 1997, 2000, 2004 RAW, 2009 SD, 2013-WM30 - AJPW 1985-86, 1988-1997 - NJPW 1982-1996 - Michinoku Pro 1996-1997 - FMW 1989-1993, 1997-98 - AJW 1984-1987, 1992-1995 - JWP 1988-1997 - ARSION 1998-99 - GAEA 1997, 1999 - ROH 2002-2006 - EMLL/CMLL 1989-1992, 1996-1997, 2000-2004 - AAA 1993-94 - BattlARTS 1998-1999 - WCW 1989, 1992, 1996-97 - JCP 1985-1988 - UWF 1988-90 - RINGS 1996-1999 - Osaka Pro 2000

I can't answer the in-ring question because there are so many periods that are wildly different from each other that have nonetheless given us such great stuff. I'd hate to exclude any of them from a conversation like this. As an overall wrestling presentation, to me, wrestling peaked from April-September 1986 in Jim Crockett Promotions.

Jim Ross was a heat magnet on a lot of issues. For example, there's a story of him lowballing HHH on a payoff at Vince's orders and when HHH went to Vince about it, Vince said, "Of course you should get a bigger payoff" and put all the heat on JR. HHH retaliated by throwing punches at JR's bad eye in a "match" they had on Raw years later. Anyway, I'm sure they were looking to get rid of Mark Carano as it was and this just made a convenient cover reason.

The problem is that Vince McMahon is a cruel sociopath. Everything stems from that. Since that problem can't be solved, they have to set up fall guys throughout their corporate structure.

What's out there that no one seems to have, that I know of: - Low Ki vs Trent Acid in the cage match from JCW in 2000 - That Santo-Quackenbush tag match from the same tour as their singles match - Tons of APW shows

Given his body of work, Takada's drop was probably an overreaction, even if he was probably too high in 2006. I would like to see someone around here really make his case. A lot of the people who post about shoot style here don't really care for him.

I would argue that Brock Lesnar was pushed harder than any pro wrestler in history. That on its own isn't a bad thing, but that type of push should produce the greatest wrestler of all time. It didn't. So even when he's great, it's hard not to feel disappointed.