jdw

It had a role, but their look is what always got them over before they even no sold against opponents. I actually think their no selling gets a little overplayed anyway. They were heels in GA, and actually got beat on occassions by teams that we *now* scratch our heads over. We also can say that they no sold for the Russians, but they actually would work Hawk-in-Peril or Animal-in-Peril sequences. Just not very effectively, other than building for a comeback. To a degree the Steiners often had similar issues. They could work Scott-in-Peril or Rick-in-Peril, but they in the end weren't very good against most teams. No one really believed against most opponents that Scott or Rick were in trouble - they just had that aura of a super team that would wake up and suplext the opponents all over the place. And while they might be semi-game in trying to sell, it usually was pretty stiff in appearance. You don't have to be Terry Funk or Ricky Steamboat in selling... but even Hogan in his periods of selling conveyed being in "pain" better than Rick and Scott. Hawk & Animal were the same. It's not that they didn't sell for the opponents, other than specific no-sell spots. It's just that no one really bought it after they went face. Yeah... Dusty could be out in left field for a while with you wondering where he was headed... then pull the threads together. The other amazing thing is the his out in left field stuff also connected strongly with the fans - he was talking about the common man, or that he didn't look pretty or wasn't in the best shape but had the biggest heart, yadder yadder. It's just stunning how good his 70s interviews on the WWE DVD are. And I doubt that they're remotely close to the best stuff he was doing in the era. If we were to get all the FL stuff on the weekly shows while he's in the middle of a major feud, I'm sure we'll see even more blow away stuff. Yeah... Lawler was amazing on the mic, and extremely versatile. Could work humor, a bit arrogant when needed, really pissed when needed. And always able to get across the storyline, even when as you say they were thin. I'm surprised this isn't brought up more, since Graham getting a decent length reign allowed them to bring popular occasional guests Dusty & Mil as regulars in a fresh role as babyface challenger (and given how this went against the WWWF formula, fans may have been more inclined to expect a title change). I'm not sure if Dave, the biggest Graham supporter there is, even slowed down to think about it. I don't know if anyone has. That's the irony. Some of the stuff gets lobbed at Backlund is never taken a step back from to see if it applies to other WWWF/WWF folks. John

Someone get Shoe over into the Turner thread/forum. John

That's just the starting point. It's likely that they have more in mind for him than that. On the point someone made about him being older than Ross... technically, "yes". But Jimbo looks about 10-15 years older than he is. Some of that is the Bell's palsy... some of it is the weight... no doubt some of that is the stress of being in the middle of this insane business for 20+ years. John

I don't disagree with that. What I would add to it would be just how significant that separation from the pack is. Kevin Mitchell separated himself from the baseball pack - he won an MVP. Of the 1000 or so players who were in major league baseball in 1989, how many ever won an MVP? 10%? 5%? 2%? Of the people who've played in MLB during and since 1931 when the MVP's became a permanent annual tradition, how many folks have won it. 1% of all players? 0.5% of all players? It's something that goes up on the board and stays there forever. Is he a reasonable HOF candidate? Not at all. So it's not *just* that a person distingushed themselves in an area. It's just how much they did, and how it rates next to others who distingushed themselves, the context, etc. I think as other people have often pointed out, Hogan was over before Rocky III came out on May 28, 1982. In fact, he had a rather big and famous match against Bockwinkle before that. Hogan was over back in 1980 in the WWF. They could have turned him face at that point and he would have been a megastar. The Road Warriors didn't get over after a decade of no selling. The got over almost instantly because of their *look*. And kept getting over because of it. In promotion after promotion. The Warriors were usually over *before* they ever stepped foot in a promotion. They were over in the AWA before they got there. They were over big in Japan before their first tour. They were over in Crockett before they showed up. Look and hype. His promos have to be the most overrated of all time. Compare his promos on his DVD (which had to be the best the WWE could turn up since they were trying to make him look like a king) with those by Dusty in the 70s on his WWE DVD. They are not even remotely close. Graham was just babbling nonsense. Dusty, while rambling for a long time, had the ability to pulling himself back in and tie everything up into the points he was making. The one he does with Vince in the empty arena is simply amazing. Note: I always have hated Dusty. If I would, I'd like to give him zero credit for anything in his career. But I can't. So when I say that his interview ran circles around Superstars and Billy's were sucky messes, it's not because I love Dusty. I really don't care to put him over. I'm sure Bix could pop in here to tell you how Lawler as well would run circles around Graham... and not even when cherry picking Jerry's best like they did for Billy's DVD. Jerry in a throwaway mic spot out there with Lance Russell would do a spot on job of getting over this weeks match, the opponent, and why people needed to come out to see it. Rather than rambling on and on in a coke stupor about the 24 inch pythons. Hell, I suspect Bix could tell you that Bill Dunde from that era could smoke Billy on the mic like a cheap cigar. No... really... they were dogshit. The next watchable Superstar match that I watch will be the first. They're terrible. One of the 10 most charismatic? I don't think so. One of the 20? 50? I just don't think he was that earth shattering in terms of charisma, especially when you don't tie it to juice-related charisma. I think the knocks are: * he was a shitty worker * his prime on top was short * his prime on top in MSG is overrated because he was working opposite Bruno, Dusty, Mil and Bob. When he wasn't, you'd have something like the Bruno-Patera blow off actually main eventing the card. There's are few shows other than those types of cards. Somehow, Superstar gets 100% of the credit for all that, which is ironic relative to his successor. * his impact wasn't earth shattering. Not saying that it didn't exist, but he was more part of a trend that came to dominate wrestling more than five years after his prime run (and actually after he'd briefly come back not remotely in the same shape). * his mic work was/is overrated * he was given a golden spot - the first sustained heel "champ" in New York since Rogers from 6/30/61 - 5/17/63. Close to 15 years. It was a novelty watching top faces (Bruno, Dusty, Mil and finally the new star Backlund) line up to take the belt, with NY fans wondering if this would be the night... especially since Koloff and Stasiak didn't get past their *first* defense in New York. I'm not saying that was 100% of the reason he drew, as it wasn't. But his quality of opponents and the uniquing benefit of the context of his run _never_ get talked about when people are talking about the Greatness of The Superstar. Which again is ironic. There almost certainly are more, but I'm running it into the ground. The point is that the criticism of Graham's candidacy isn't just limited to the shortness of his run. I'm not even sure his fame is that great. So much of it frankly comes simply from being a champ in New York, and a rare heel one to boot. John

I don't think Bix is implying that Mike will come in and be "Al Michaels in his Prime good". More along the lines of this being pro wrestling and the Wheef, there's the potential for some good campy fun with Mike given his Gladiators experiance. John

Cue the ritual humiliation and the subsequent milking of the martyrdom in 10, 9, 8,... Scratch that. Looks like Jimbo just signed a new two year deal. Then again... that could be the dreaded Vote of Confidence handed out to Jim. John

The Molinaro book is a joke. I think pretty much everyone, other than those involved in doing the book and those who are locked into defending it, admit that. So Graham being #64 there doesn't mean a great deal. The thing is, the 100 NA wrestlers in the WON HOF are the "100 Most Important" NA Wrestlers. Honestly... Rick Steamboat isn't that important of a wrestler. But he's in. Benoit wasn't an important wrestler when he went in. I don't think Kurt Angle was terribly important when he went in. Etc. Importance/impact are just one of the criteria. Graham's relates to juice, but it's one he shares with a number of wrestlers from Hogan to Kerry to the Road Warriors to the Ultimate Warrior as things evolved. How do your spread it among those people? I don't know. But each of them, along with probably a few others on a lower level, had enough significant impact that you can't simply give Graham 100% of the "juice impact" bonus points for the HOF. It's similar to people who try to give Michaels 100% of the "smaller guys getting pushed" points... then giving Rey a big chunk... and Bret a big chunk... and Benoit & Eddy a big chunk, etc. I have no doubt he would get 60% now simply from all the pimping of him that Dave has done. That doesn't make it "correct". Don't forget that Dave seems to think Akira Maeda wouldn't get 60% from his own voters now. That threshold doesn't exactly define good analysis. John

Agreed that this is a kewl signing by the whiff. I suspect he'll take Jimbo's spot eventually. John

I'm not a big fan of the "there are worse in" argument. It basically means anyone better than the worst person in the HOF deservers to be in. That's a problem. Graham's drawing power had less to do with him getting in that would now seem 11+ years after the fact. The MSG book wasn't out, and the pimping of Graham as a great draw wasn't then what it would become. Graham's "impact" relating to juice and bodying building in wrestling had more to do with it. I think the real reason the argument is circular is that people don't slow down to look at the cards of Graham in contrast to Backlund. John