Loss

Like a June Cleaver?

For those who don't know what Johnny Sorrow is referring to, DVDVR had a thread about ten years ago where people dished dirt on wrestlers (probably some truth, but mostly fabrication I think). It drew tons of attention and DVDVR got a lot of new members out of it, but it also seemed to mark the beginning of a decline for the board.

I think this thread could be fun if it switched more to stuff like people who secretly are great at playing Backgammon or can sew or collect things or odd wrestler facts like that.

The more wrestling I've watched, the more I've gotten away from the idea of a good match being a collection of specific and tangible qualities. I tend to think more about the viewing experience as an entirety. If bad selling, as one example, is distracting, sure, that's a problem, but if you can acknowledge it but don't think it really took anything away from the match, then I don't really care. Sometimes matches can have endearing flaws just as they can sometimes satisfy every item on the proverbial checklist in such a calculated way that it's all too neat and sort of a turn-off. So with that said, my big four would be: - Extemporaneous feel (I don't care if the match is carefully laid out ahead of time, but it shouldn't be obvious in the work) - Emotional resonance and a strong crowd reaction (Punch me in the gut!) - Convincing action and reaction (This includes offense, selling, transitions, etc.) - A layout that makes sense considering their booking goals, card placement and other contextual issues Those things matter. Except when they don't.

Something Dave has mentioned many times is that Sting had the most envied deal in wrestling because he didn't work as many dates as the WWF guys and he also made more money than most of them. When he saw his peers like Luger, Flair, the Road Warriors and the Steiners jump, he saw them work more, make less money, lessen their stardom and come back. So the idea of him jumping wasn't ever something seriously on the table.

That's not very nice.

I won't have any lists ready until the beginning of the year, sadly. This week was just to test it out and I didn't even get as much out of it as I hoped to do. Still, I'm looking forward to diving in on January 1. I'm thinking about taking a wrestling break until the new year just so I can come out guns blazing.

What's amazing is that this is sort of what turned Jericho babyface.

It's almost impossible for an American woman to make a strong case because there were so many good workers in the Joshi feds up and down the card for so long. The Divas Revolution would have to be more than the in-name-only thing it's been so far, and now that she's had her NXT farewell, it's going to get even tougher. I realize she isn't only competing with women for spots, but as of now, there are so many even mid-level women in the Japanese groups that have had best matches so far above hers. She's off to a good start, but forget competing for a spot with Aja Kong or Akira Hokuto. I'm still not sure how she competes with Sakie Hasegawa or Yumiko Hotta. It's a handicap that if she can overcome is a phenomenal achievement, but the odds are highly against it working out.

I feel like I should be referring to "durability" instead of "versatility" since that's really what I value more. How many places can you make your match and your general style work without having to change too much to blend in? So I agree that's not versatility. And I think of guys like Flair and Vader there. I don't think it's a bad thing to change if it works, but guys who don't have to do that when all signs say they should are pretty cool.

Did you watch the match on the DVD, or the one mentioned earlier in the thread?

A career of matches and performances. We are arguing the same thing.

Agreed. Talent in practice matters more than just having the talent. But whether they realize it or not, everyone has already agreed to that in terms of how they are ranking guys anyway.

Who had the best career as a piece of criteria means who translated their work from bell-to-bell to have the greatest reach in making themselves a star and making others stars, who impacted the generally accepted style the most and who racked up the most great matches along the way? In other words, who made being a great worker mean the most?

I think a better way to say it is that we need to have seen more of the available footage of a guy in competitive matches than we haven't before jumping to conclusions that may or may not be right.

I'd like to think there were plans, but it's possible they were just doing what their gimmick was and that's that. They were parodying Sting's overly trusting nature and Luger's too-many-to-count turns all at once.

Childs, I haven't forgotten you. I need a break but will respond sometime in the next day.

This isn't directed at you, but I think Gordy is a phenomenal example, because Misawa didn't have great matches with him either. I'm not sure if Kawada ever faced him or not in a singles match, but if he did, it's not something that has really gained traction. Kobashi had a great match with Gordy, but Kobashi in 1993 would make a match through attrition. My point is that if we scratch the surface on Gordy, we'll probably find that no one in the GOAT conversation who faced him had a great match with him. I found the Jumbo match in 1984 underwhelming, and the 1985 one didn't even make the All Japan set. Gordy's best matches tended to come against guys who I like and who plenty of others like, but who I've never seen anyone argue as the GOAT -- Killer Khan, Kerry Von Erich, Jim Duggan and Steve Williams. That's not meant to excuse Flair, but because it leads me to think, "Ok, who can we point to that is in this conversation who had a great match with Terry Gordy?" And the only guy I can come up with is Kenta Kobashi and while I do like that match and would call it Gordy's best singles match of the 90s, it's not so much something I see people raise to point to Kobashi's ability to deliver a great match. It seems to be more that Flair should have pulled it off. And perhaps he should have. I can admit that. Gordy was capable of having a great match. But there are other guys like Randy Savage who, while they did have great matches with great workers, tended to turn in career performances against lesser guys. Savage's matches with Hogan and Warrior may not touch his matches with Lawler and Steamboat, but if you look at what Savage brought to the matches, I think it can be argued he was a better carrier than dance partner. When I look at Gordy's best opponents, I think the same thing. I think this is a great point. It's probably the strongest point in Lawler's favor, actually. It also rings true for other regional stars. Buddy Rose is the first name I think of next to Lawler. You're usually someone who defends Flair against criticism that he "plays the bitch", so you're consistent in your viewpoints here. So once again, this isn't directed at you. But I do think anyone who has Lawler over Flair for that reason is overlooking the obvious. Lawler was presented as the Unified Champion, the very best in the business. Yet he wrestled the same cheap heat style as the opening match guy and didn't really use any wrestling moves at all. There was nothing to suggest he was the best not just in stuff he did but how his matches were laid out. By comparison, I think about Flair being a giving guy but luring his opponent into a false sense of security. I'm thinking of a transition, you know the one, where his opponent gets frustrated because he can't keep Flair down and momentarily deviates from his game plan and tries a splash or elbow drop, only to eat canvas or a gut full of knees. Then suddenly Flair is the ultimate opportunist. So I think watching a Flair match, I can say, "Wow, this guy has nine lives, he takes a beating but he can find his way out of anything". We can debate if that's the best message to send to an audience when your lead competitor has a top star who beats everyone he faces cleanly, but I do think that there is a way to work as a heel champ and still seem credible even without taking much offense.

What the heck, I'm motivated to respond now. I like the deep analysis of Flair. I like the deep analysis of Shawn. I only think they are being treated unfairly in the sense that I'd like to see more guys go through the ringer. I don't think the answer is to scale back how we look at Flair or Shawn as much as it is to go deeper on how we look at everyone else. I see some steps in that direction and I hope we eventually get there. It would be awesome to have that same level of scrutiny for everyone, or at the very least, everyone who is generally considered to be in the GOAT conversation. Everyone is going to have flaws, in some cases very deep ones that matter, but to me, you know a guy is the real deal when his flaws have been given plenty of sunlight and have been mulled over by both his critics and supporters, but they don't subtract from the general opinion. You put someone like Lawler through that ringer, for example, and I think appreciation of him only increases. Flair and Shawn were similar wrestlers, but where I think they differ is that I don't think they had the same strengths and weaknesses. I don't think I'd criticize Shawn for being too predictable overall, except maybe in his comeback. Part of that is that he spent more time working tag teams exclusively than Flair ever did, and he popularized so many gimmick matches in WWE that they can't help but be different. His career had more distinct phases and reinventions than Flair's. I'd say the most common criticisms of Shawn are that he has weak-looking offense and that as a babyface, he stops selling when it's time to get to his comeback and negates all the work done in the match to that point. The weak-looking offense critique isn't something that I have really seen directed at Flair, and I don't think that one really applies to him anyway. Flair's offensive peak was probably the early 1980s when he was solid on the mat, had a nice variety of suplexes and hadn't paired down his leg work. In fact, the point that I really stopped considering Flair a great worker (I no longer saw him as one of the best in the world, but still viewed him as a great worker) was when he started using the belly-to-back suplex as his sole setup move for the figure four. But even as Flair limited his offense, I don't think what remained started looking less convincing. I do think their general philosophy on how to present themselves as juicers and bumpers was similar, but when I look at the holes that have been poked in both guys, I don't see many similarities because I think their sensibilities were actually pretty far apart. Perhaps I'm overlooking something. I think that's a very fair point. Yeah, I hated even mentioning my stance on the GWE project again, but it seemed relevant. Still, I tried to gloss over it. Fair or not, as an admin of the board, it's different saying something like that than just being a poster, and what I said a year ago I don't necessarily regret because I still think it, but I wish I hadn't said it in the context I did. I admit that a lot of the self consciousness from some about casting a ballot can be traced back to that. And while I have different ideas about that, I don't want to be the reason that people start doubting whether they should get involved. I only meant to speak for myself. If anyone is still on the fence because of what I said, please, let my hang-ups be mine alone. Cast a ballot if you want. Have fun. I do think it's possible that a wrestler can be so exceptionally great in one area that the areas where they lack become unimportant. In fact, I think that's something I'd even say for Flair. I would even go as far to say that I want that in great wrestlers. Brad Armstrong is an example where the sum of the parts is more than the whole, but to me, all of the true greats find a way to exceed the combined list of their paper qualities. I think what we were attempting to refer to here more than an objective set of standards is that naming our favorite wrestler ever, or our most watchable wrestler ever, seems like something very different than naming the greatest wrestler ever. It's not that it is objective, because it's not. It can't be. It's that it's something closer to objective. I like the idea of aiming for objectivity even knowing it's impossible and that I will fail. Still, I tried and I approached it with that framework. That said, that doesn't have to be the way everyone approaches this. If I was submitting a ballot, Manami Toyota would be in my top ten not because she's one of my favorites to watch or she works a style that appeals to me personally, but because she defined the way workers performed for a generation, had influence that spilled outside of her generation and was an active participant in many of the greatest matches in wrestling history. I will admit that's an interesting take, because it's approaching this almost like a Hall of Fame ballot where ranking isn't done on work alone, but rather on the influence and impact of that work. Then again, I do think a lot of the criticisms we throw at the WON HOF apply to how we are doing GWE. I won't elaborate on that here, but if someone really wants to have that argument, they can start a thread and call me out and I'll explain. This is a point I'll concede. I think the whole idea of signature bumps needed to be re-thought when wrestling expanded nationally, at least if the company in which the wrestler was working had any desire to maintain any semblance of kayfabe. I see that as a missed opportunity for Flair as the *worker* (not wrestler, but worker) I associate most with the cable TV national expansion era. I'd call it more of a missed opportunity than an actual weakness. But I do think if he had pioneered that type of change in thought, it would have been pretty cool and would have helped his case as the #1 guy a ton.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Dylan. There are some things I'd like to clarify, some areas where I disagree and believe it or not, some areas where I would concede the point and agree with you. I'll post a full response in the morning.

Doing stuff that pops the crowd is pretty smart. At the very least, it's smarter than doing stuff that doesn't.

I like her a lot, but Manami Toyota, Toshiyo Yamada, Akira Hokuto, Sakie Hasegawa, Yumiko Hotta, Aja Kong, Dynamite Kansai, Mayumi Ozaki, Takako Inoue, Kyoko Inoue, Mariko Yoshida, Commando Bolshoi, Plum Mariko, Chigusa Nagayo, Yukari Ohmori, Lioness Asuka, Itsuki Yamazaki, Noriyo Tateno, Megumi Kudo, Combat Toyoda, Meiko Satomura, Toshie Uematsu, Yoshiko Tamura, Chikayo Nagashima, Cutie Suzuki, Hiromi Yagi, Yumi Fukawa, Mikiko Futagami, Jackie Sato, Tommie Aoyama, Azumi Hyuga, Arisa Nakajima, Sugar Sato, Etsuko Mita, Mima Shimoda, Bison Kimura, Bull Nakano, Jaguar Yokota, Harley Saito, Shinobu Kandori, The Scorpion, Esther Moreno, Kaoru, Debbie Malenko, Monster Ripper, Dump Matsumoto, Condor Saito, AKINO, Chapparita Asari, Hikari Fukuoka and Miss Mongol may take issue if she's ranked and they aren't.

Raven is the far-out extremist that would hate WWE for not being sports entertainmenty enough.

I have wondered how Xavier would pull off Rollins' theme on the trombone since there's absolutely no melody.