jdw

I saw a bit of it online years ago and I thought "Damn, these guys are crazy!" So much that when I saw ECW it just felt tame to me. I'd be surprised if you saw any FMW "online" before you saw ECW on TNA "once in a blue moon". John I don't have any reason to lie to you. There wasn't a whole lot of FMW video available "online" back in 1999. Tapes and whatnot for trade, but that's not what you're saying. And pretty much anyone who would go to any effort to get FMW in that form would have as easily gotten ECW, which was easier to get. I'm starting to understand that earlier comment about "this didn't go very well on another board." John

Given the choice between main eventing the Gardens or Mania, Mania is the big one. It was also largely a blow off: straight to a cage and Hogan won. To a degree, they booked it similar to Hogan-Andre the following year: so big that it didn't need to go around the born. And given closed circuit and PPV, it *did* main event every WWF market on a single night. Muraco got multiple matches at the Garden against Hogan. But I suspect that everyone would agree: Hogan-Bundy >>> Hogan-Muraco in terms of angle and match importance. To my earlier point: WWF and Hogan were booked in ways that weren't exactly standard to how we view things today, or even how other promotions did at the time. A large part of that was because they were a sprawling national promotion where one city's storylines/matches could get months ahead of another. Crockett would run into some of that in 1986-87 as well, which is why we'd often see things like a primary feud for Flair (Windham) and a secondary one (Armstrong) because he'd need something to fall back on in say Charlotte/Greensboro after blowing through the Barry cycle while it was still hitting less run markets elsewhere around the horn. I think I also had a post either here or over on SC about how Hogan was used in the NY market in 1986. Hogan-Orndorff never ran in MSG, except in tags. Yet it did run its full cycle in "New York" and drew a ton. It just happened to be run on Long Island. Their booking of Hogan was very complex, and lord knows how they tracked it back in CT. John

Feuding with Babinsack seems kind of pointless by now. You've made your case that he's an idiot. But he's also a meaningless idiot. John

Sounds about right. In the WWF in that era, they were very tolerant of people being loaded. But you needed to be able to perform. They were somewhat tolerant of the old "no condition to perform" of their *stars*, like JYD... but only after they'd become stars in the WWF and were seen of value. If you came in and were instantly stoned to the point of not being able to perform, they seemed to be less tolerant. Add in that Mike probably had a bit of a mouth, you could see a scene when someone from the WWF tried to dress him down for his condition... and the WWF throwing up their arms to say, "We don't need this shit with our massive roster". John

I saw a bit of it online years ago and I thought "Damn, these guys are crazy!" So much that when I saw ECW it just felt tame to me. I'd be surprised if you saw any FMW "online" before you saw ECW on TNA "once in a blue moon". John

On Hogan angles, the one with Bundy was pretty big on SNME. I also think that if we go back and look that we'll find more in 1984-85. The TV in that period isn't as well documented in detail over at Graham's as 1986+ is. I also think there were other angles going on in the WWF at the time. Tito-Muraco went around the horn, then they ran a strong angle on Tito-Valentine to set off the primary title feud (which went on forever). Steamboat's feuds always seemed rather focused: Muraco, Snake then Savage. I think we'd be able to draw more of them together if we sifted through all of the TV. Things like Hogan-Funk was a minor angle, but did set up the SNME match. There's more there like that. John

I'm not sold that they dropped the ball on the Birds. I don't think we've ever gotten a real clear picture on how things fell apart. It's not like the Birds were the virgin mary. It blew up so quickly, like the Rockers first trip to the WWF, that there's likely something behind it. It took Dave ages before he wrote about how the Rockers imploded, as I don't recall it in the WON when it first happened nor when the Rockers came back to the WWF. It wasn't hard to guess that they likely got zonked out of their minds, but the absense of it being written when Dave wrote so much about "in no condition to perform" type of stuff made one question if that was the reason. The Birds weren't saints, and had pretty large egos of thinking they could work on top where ever they went. The reality of the WWF at that point wasn't a great fit for them, even if there was a shitload of partying going on. John

The link has some internal consistency issues. Example: * Rey in ECW taught him that a 140 pound man could wrestle * it wasn't until Shawn-Taker in 2009 that he learned you could enthrall a crowd without juice I don't know... ECW Arena could have spotty heat... but I'm thinking at least *one* Rey match in the bingo hall had strong heat that enthralled the crowd. That's setting aside all the other ECW matches that got heat from the crowd without juice. Not that ECW wasn't heavy on the blade. But... come on. There are more than a few of those. First post in this thread has some of it as well. The reference to FWM is interesting... John

I don't think the WWF was quite as messy in 1984 as he thinks it was given the massive influx of talent and expansion into new towns (and increased push into towns like Los Angeles that they had broken into earlier to mixed results). It's quite hard to look at the WWF on a "day-to-day" basis because feuds in that era tended to take place over different stretches: Hogan-Savage Spectrum: 09/28/86 (early test run) MSG: 12/30/85, 01/27/86, 02/07/86 Boston: 05/24/86, 06/27/86 Hogan-Savage, which went around the horn in late 1985 and early 1986, didn't really even play in Philly. They got basically the "try out match" for the feud, then nothing happened. MSG got the major feud. Boston did as well, but ran through it in two matches, ending more than 4 months after it did in MSG. Tito-Savage Boston: 01/11/86, 02/08/86 (title change), 03/08/86 Spectrum: 03/07/86, 05/10/86, 05/31/86 MSG: 03/16/86, 04/22/86, 05/19/86, 06/14/86 (tag), 07/12/86 (cage tag) All of the cities got the three singles match saga, but it ean two months earlier in Boston. In New York, they stretched it out into the cool tag finale with Adonis and Bruno involved, which in a sense gave Tito closure on a "hate" level by beating up Savage in the cage. This really isn't a mess, but rather a pretty complex Booking Board that they must have had back in CT. With Hogan in 1984-85, he didn't always need a major angle to launch a feud. They'd promo the crap out of stuff with the local promos. It was basically *Hogan* that was the draw, rather than either an intricate or ham handed angle. Still, I think if you look close you'll see him cycle through feuds or series of matches in cities, then have the next challenger pop up the next time he blew through town. John John

Did back before the comeback. It's moot not: he's in. John

Mask mentioned on Classics that Jack has a triple bypass last week. John

Yeah, even if Hogan was on good terms with Vince, he probably would try to duck doing the speach for Inoki. Hansen... is really freaking strange. He jumped at the end of 1981, and was strictly loyal to Baba over the years. One would have thought the if the WWE asked him to do Inoki that he'd say that he'd only do it if it was for Baba as well as Inoki. I'm not sure who could do Inoki. Very few of Inoki's big gaijin rivals are folks that you would think that the WWE could use. Dusty probably would be a decent one, since he was pretty damn loyal to Inoki even though the NWA was associated with Baba. He wasn't a big rival of Inoki's, but could bullshit his way through a speach. Sort of a strange thing, and I look forward to Dave explaining why the WWE is doing it. One would think making an annual tour of Japan with Inoki doing some PR for it. John

Wow... didn't even know that he was in poor health. John

I wonder what would give people that impression. That's talking about two different elements: Shawn As A Human Being Shawn As A HOF Candidate I tend to think both Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan are pieces of shit as human beings. I also helped "vote" them into the WON HOF. It really had no impact on how I judged them as candidates. I think if one were to go back and read through the various Shawn Michaels 4 Teh WON HOF threads on Wrestling Classics, they'll find that I spent vastly less time on his shitty human character than I did on the rest of his candidacy. It really didn't rate that much to me when looking at him as a candidate. That's why, as I posted above and some other have also mentioned, it always was a bit annoying that Dave rolled out the "unprofessional" aspect as the reason folks weren't voting for him. I, and I know some other voters, weren't voting for him for other things we saw lacking in his candidacy. But it's easy to dismiss criticism as shrill, and try to hang your hat on the easy out rather than wider questions. John

Cena not being as protected as DX doesn't seem to be an example of the problem of parity booking. Cena working an opening match at 2008 Judgement Day isn't parity booking either. There are people in the company who don't care abou protecting Cena, and frankly would like to see him go away like Rock. So him getting kneecapped fits into my point. Parity booking *and* kneecapping are two sides of same mindset in the highest reaches of WWE Creative. The kneecapping doesn't always work. Didn't with Rock. Didn't always work with Foley. Hasn't entirely with Cena. There have been some others like Edge or Jeff Hardy where it may not have worked well. On the other hand, neither of them got to the level that Cena did in this era, nor of course to where Rock and Foley did. It's been effective in avoiding enough folks to move up to make Trip irrelevant. John

I actually think he was a bit more balanced on that: people had a valid reason not to vote for Shawn. He did focus a bit too much on the "Shawn's was an unprofessional prick for not dropping the titles" as the reason people didn't vote for him. It's quite possible that's what a lot of people told him. I found it frustrating because at the time I thought there were quite a few more reasons to not vote for him, quite a few centered on Pro Shawn Voters over inflating his accomplishments and imact. I tended to think that when you looked at him more objectively, the plusses weren't as great as people were making them out to be. Of course folks didn't think I was objective in my thinking. It's the old saw that if you don't love him as much as I do, you must hate him and are being shrill. John

Yeah for all of Dave's claims about peers voting him in there were suddenly dozens of new "reporters" and "historians" voting that year. I'd love to see someone do the estimated math on the changes in the ballot over the years. There was some growth in "reporters" and "historians" in that time frame because Dave was doing more business online, and handing out ballots. But we all know that the lions share of growth in ballots over the years has come folks in the business. John

He was inducted in 2003, meaning voting from about Jun-Jul 2003. I suspect that him coming back had some to do with it. He was over 50% the year before. It's a short skip to 60%, especially give who got in 2002 and who did in 2003: 2002 Kenta Kobashi Manami Toyota Wahoo McDaniel 2003 Chris Benoit Shawn Michaels There wasn't a Kobashi on the ballot, nor someone like Wahoo who was pulling the sympathy vote for dropping dead and getting the big bio. The 2003 class was light, and no one really to draw attention away from Shawn and Chris. Dave handing out more ballots had a part to do with it. But I think if we did the math on the number of votes each year, there wasn't a massive jump from 2002 to 2003. I think there has been a greater jump in numbers from 2003 to 2009 than there was from 2001 to 2003. He always was going to get in. The comeback helped focus people on actually getting him over the 60% hump from being in the 50's the year before. John

I still think Shawn is a piece of shit. Thought it while he was champ in 1996/97. Thought it when he went out with the "career ender". Thought it when he came back. I also probably like his matches since he came back far less than most folks. John

Given the choice between an awards issue and the Dr Death obit, I'd take the Dr Death obit. I skimmed through the awards in five minutes. About the only interesting things were: "UFC tied New Japan with four straight Promotion of the Year." "Dana ties Baba with five straight Promoter of the Years." "Cool! UF didn't win this year. All Japan's record of five straight Best TV Shows lives!" Not that I loath UFC (though comparing MMA booking/promoting/tv to wrestling booking/promotion/tv is apples & oranges). But do enjoy at least one AJPW record hold. Anyway, let's hope that someone doesn't drop dead this week so that we finally get the Doc bio next week. John

To protect the top spots of certain people on top. John

Was the match any good? I really need to finalize the list of WWF house shows up through 1983 I need to get to fill in stuff I don't have. I've wanted to watch the 1983 Bob-Slaughter blow off in Philly. There are a number of other ones, though Corey's old Bob set has a fair number of them (though the vq is in need of upgrade). John

What is the legacy of the A-Team? Seriously... it meant nothing by the 90s when Todd was an actual thinking kid as opposed to a toddler. The legacy of the A-Team is Mr. T? You could get that simply from Rocky III. That "pity the fool" shit we see in commercials? It's right there in Rocky III. George Peppard as Hannibal? Folks think of Silence of the Lambs when you toss around Hannibal. Catch it on re-runs like us kids of the 70s would have watched Bonanza in re-run? The 90s morphed into dozens of channels with tons of first runs stuff, craploads more of live sports available, and loads more of that wrestling stuff we're fans of easily available on the tube. It is extremely *easy* not to pay attention to re-runs of a show that was on when you were a toddler if you don't give a shit about it. Especially a show that by the 90s literally meant nothing to anyone who didn't watch it when it was first on. The analogy to the Brady Bunch is horse shit. They simply aren't analogous in how there were viewed *after* they were on. The Brady Bunch went into the heavy syndication re-run rotation for more than a decade, and was targetted at a very specific age range. It was the Nick & Disney equiv of it's time. Freaking Marsha Brady had a longer shelf life as "someone to look up to" for tweens that the Olsen Twins and Hanna Montana. Perhaps we loose that today because no one back then knew how to market things as brillantly as we've seen since the Twins turned into a monster marketing machine. The A-Team wasn't as big as say Dynasty - a #1 show. But by the 90s, who gave a ratshit about Dynasty other than people who watched it in the 80s when it was "hot". You could be a kid in the 90s and not know who Joan Collins is, and why anyone would care about her. Better analogy? Kids like me knew who Farrah and Bo Derek were. They're iconic to Dude of my generation. It didn't take long into the 80s before both meant literally nothing to *us*. Farrah never had another big hit for Dudes in her career after leaving the Angles. She had success with The Burning Bed, but that launched a career of being a Chick TV Movie Of The Week star. To guys born in 1976 rather than 1966, she wasn't a blip on the radar. They might be aware of her in some way, but they frankly wouldn't have a clue why guys of my age would still be waxing poetically in the late 90s about her poster and time on the Angles. Bo was red hot with 10... and then here career went to shit. Tarzan? Bolero? She became a joke. And I suspect people born in 1980 and beyond look at 10 and wonder, "WTF were people getting so hot shit about this chick?" I tossed out Owen Marshall and Delvecchio simply because they were there on the schedule. You ducked Rich Man, Poor Man. That was one that drawfed the A-Team, and literally changed TV which isn't remotely close to what the A-Team did. I really think people are wanking off on this when there are no doubt better criticism to be lofted at Todd. John

Ugh. John

If you're born in 1980-82, it's quite possible to not know what the A-Team was. It ran from 1983-86. Owen Marshall: Counselor at Law ran from 1971-74. I was 5-8 years old while it ran. I know dick about it. I should know Arthur Hill, who was the lead in it. I've seen Andromeda Strain... but probably close to three decades ago, so even the face of Hill isn't popping into my head. Todd was quite young when some of this stuff aired. Again, I'm no defender of Todd as some probably could confirm. But people are being a bit goofy here on the old stuff. If he was 3-8 when some of this stuff aired, and the "8" came when the shit was falling off the cliff, it's easy for him not to have known what's what about the show. We all can live in our own bubbles. I actually think it's *easier* now than it was back in the 70s. We had three networks, and the local indy channels ran very little in terms of First Run series. When there was only three shows on at a time, it's easier to track. But even then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%93...vision_schedule I was 10-11 during that season. I don't remember much at all about Delvecchio. All's Fair? Christ, even with Bernadette Peters in it... I don't recall it at all. Executive Suite? I never watched Police Story or Police Woman, though I do recall Angie was the lead for Police Woman. It's funny, but Rich Man, Poor Man (from the prior season with it's sequal airing here) was a massive breakthough that completely changed the landscape of TV similar to Survivor and Idol... but I never watch it, and don't know what it's about. I know Peter Strauss from other things. I know *of* Rich Man, Poor Man from its historical impact, but that's it. Seriously... it's not a big deal not to know the stuff from the 80s when you were under 8. Nash Bridges... think about it a bit. He was a high school / college aged kid. That was a Friday at 10 PM show. Everyone raise their hands who was sitting around at home watching shows like Nash Bridges at that age? *looks around* Now Miami Vice was a Friday at 10 PM show while I was in college, and we *did* sit around watching. But that's a little different: after long week of hitting the books, MV was an excellent show to drink lots of beer and pull far too many bong loads to. It was quite entertaining to get loaded watching a hip show about Crockett & Tubbs chasing down... guys supplying stoners. John