jdw

I think pretty much everyone did at some point, with the exception of Hansen.

Just in case people don't know... Shoe and I have been talking about WWF matches, workers and work from this era for ages. Like seven years, Shoe? We agree on a hell of a lot more than we disagree on, and have as far as I recall always gotten along. Just because we disagree a bit on Pat doesn't mean either of us is reaching for the barbed wire baseball bat. Anyway... Yep. Also given how Dave talks about workers, I'm not sure if he'd come up with the same list of The Best 15 Workers I've Ever Seen everytime he's asked to make it... or if with the slightest poking he wouldn't change it: Q: "You didn't mention Jaguar." DM: "Oh, right... Jaguar needs to be on there." That's likely the case for all of us. I wouldn't have a clue who my Top 15 would be as worker. Hell, I didn't participate in that Yohe Project (overall, not work) because I couldn't come up with #3 All Time after Londos and Hogan... let alone a Top 100 list. Okay. I just need more to put him up there. For sure someone that you'd want to sit down with to talk about stuff, especially if he was totally candid and was in the mood to explain stuff. I think some do, more than others. The best Pat-Patera has a smart, low tech layout that hits some nice payoffs. Patera had good matches with pretty much everyone that year (well... don't recall with Pedro), and pretty good layouts as well (like against Bruno). But that one did feel more of being Pat's. Others... not as much. Beyond the sense that all workers being a bit of their own stuff to matches. Don't know. I'm not sure we have a great survey of stuff of 70s style workers when it comes to available stuff. Never really put Bob in a box on match length. There are things like the second 60:00 draw with Inoki that I thought is as good of a match as he ever had. Enjoy the Bob-Greg draw, and like the Bob-Muraco draw more than most. On the flip, things like the 9/80 and 2/81 matches with Hansen that were 16-17 minutes long like the Bob-Patterson Philly matches that I thought were very good to excellent. I think the cage match with Sarge was terrific, and that was 16. The "title held up" match with Valentine in 11/81 was very entertaining, and that was like a 15 minute sprint for the two of them. Adonis lumberjack match was 16. 5/83 match with Sarge was 16, and nice evidence that Bob was still over and having good matches after he allegedly wasn't over anymore. Then there are a lot of matches in the 20-30 range that are good to really good to great. He also had mediocre ones of various lengths. The ones that stick in mind as "damn, this was way too short and I want more" were the Hansen cage match (just damn odd since it ended quick and almost out of nowhere), and the 5/82 Backlund-Orton in Philly (which needed about 5-8 minutes added on of Orton on top taking it too Backlund). Those Pat-Bob matches in Philly didn't seem time constrained, because another 5-8 minutes of them would have just been another 5-8 minutes of Pat laying around. In the MSG match it wasn't the time: it was Pat being engaged in working. :/ John

Couple of new things popped up on Dan's recent list: 02/19/78 Baba & Tenryu vs. Kintaro Oki & Kim Duk (15:41 shown) 01/03/80 Tenryu & Rocky Hata vs Billy Robinson & Bill Irwin (12:29 shown) 01/11/80 Baba & Tenryu vs Angelo Mosca & Jerry Novak (7:26 shown) 01/18/80 Jumbo & Tenryu vs Bill Robinson & Bill Irwin (3 falls: 12:00 shown, 6:00 shown, 2:31 shown) The 1978 match is interesting because Oki & Duk are the tag champs at the time, and there are a fair number of Baba & Jumbo vs Oki & Duk matches to comp it with. On the 1980 stuff, for some reason not much (if anything) from Tenryu in 1980 hit AJPW.

Who here doesn't like wrestling? I mean... some of us think Demolition wasn't any good or that Monsoon was a shitty play-by-play man, but that doesn't mean we don't like wrestling. We just don't like Demolition. Is there a quota for watching wrestling? Do you have to do it every day? Five times a day? If someone doesn't watch current wrestling, but knows a lot about PR wrestling in the 80s and 90s, should that person not talk about wrestling?

Dave likes Pat, and saw him in SF closer to Pat's prime. It's a reasonable opinion based on Dave seeing more than pretty much all us here. On the other hand, we all have things we disagree with Dave about when it comes to judging workers. I don't think a lot of people agree with him on how he judges the work of Brody, nor Sayama. So while not an unreasonable opinion, I don't think many of us take Dave's thoughts on work as the Gospel anymore. I think he was a good worker in that era. The past his prime thing only goes so far with me: Beyes was the same age and older while having better performances. His mind still is. Even after his career was over, he was smart when it came to work. We all agree on that. Here's the thing: we all have seen excellent structure and layout in matches involving Patera, Slaughter, Backlund and DiBiase when Pat wasn't involved. We've seen it in promotions when Pat wasn't even in the promotion. So structure in their matches isn't a Pat-thing. Those are some pretty decent workers in laying out matches. I think he was a really good worker. Top 2-3 in the world? I think that's nuts. I'm not underselling him: he's being oversold at that level. In the good ones with Patera and Bob, sure. In the Slaughter one? No, that was Slaughter being off the charts and Pat being good and holding up his end well. Ted? I don't think either were that great. I don't think time has anything to do with it. The mediocre Philly matches were 18 minutes long. We've seen both Pat and Bob in good matches at that length. The were bad matches because Pat laid around in hold. In contrast, he worked the holds in the strong MSG match. It's actually about talking about wrestling. We all can watch footage in a vacuum. That's what we did before we came online. This is a place to talk about your conclusions. John

Lots of people are correct. I admitted as much in one recent thread. Lots of us talk about matches we watched within the past 1-3 days. Lots of us also talk about matches we've watched 10-20 times over the past 20 years. Does anyone really expect any of us, when talking about the 12/03/93 Misawa & Kobashi vs Kawada & Taue, to pop in the tape/dvd or pull up the youtube clip after we've already watched it a dozen times? Who here pretends they know everything about every single subject ever written? Take me for example since you're clearly obsessing about me at the moment. Do I write much about European wrestling? Do I write much about PR wrestling? Memphis? Portland? When I'm asked about someone like Buddy Rose, I'm pretty open on copping to not watching his Portland stuff, and it's on my list to eventually get to... which is likely a decade away. But what they hey, keep obsessing and shilling your podcast in this thread rather than in the podcast shill zone. Oh... and to the original on topic element: just how much Stevens & Patterson in San Francisco in the 60s do you think was watched in the past 1-3 days to come up with them being a HOF tag team in the 60s? Or was that based on something else? John

The finishing sequence is one of the best I've ever seen, with great attention to detail and a wonderful Agamemnon's Death vibe. John

I don't debate people that haven't watched the stuff in >3500 days, but for a fun show where people talk about the matches within 1-3 days of the record date, check out http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrestling/ Since we're talking about matches from the 70s and early 80s, no one is talking about then within 1-3 days of the record date. As far as talking about Patterson matches within a few days of watching them... I did. A lot, in overkill length. The 3500 day thing is kind of funny since most of what I've bought and watched over the past 2-3 years is WWF 70s and 80s stuff, including Pat. It's all the mass All Japan discs from the 70s and 80s and 90s that I've bought in that period that hasn't been watching, most of it still in the boxes / packages / spindles that they were shipped in. But nice try... John

We don't have the footage to actually do the research ourselves so it's not something we can draw conclusions on except from other people from the era. With that said even if Stevens was better than Pat it doesn't take away that Pat was a great worker. From the footage that is out there Patterson is the better worker, and has a great mind at working a match. It's like Montana and Young. Both are great QB's. Both are in the HOF . Both are on the same team. Both are great. [...] I will say John since I've watched a good bit of WWF in 79. Pat is in the running for MVP. I feel he was the best promo as a wrestler in the company in 79. Miles ahead of Bob. Pat had 3 really strong matches against Dibiase, and one that was solid, but was hurt due to time. He had a good feud with Bob. One of those matches I thought was the 2nd best match in 79 in WWF. Sill I have it pegged as Backlund as MVP followed by Patterson and Valentine. I found the DiBiase series pretty uninteresting, though as much for Ted as Pat. I thought the series with Bob ranged from awful (the two Philly matches that exist) to subpar (the overrated cage match) to very good (the 07/30/79 MSG match). The suckage of the Philly matches was entirely Pat. I haven't seen Pat "great" on tape. I've seen solid performances, like the good MSG match with Backlund, against Patera, and against Slaughter. But I thought the other guy was the better worker in all of them, and they all had better matches against other opponents. He was solid against Inoki, but not really dynamic or overly interesting in the match. That Patera and Inoki all had better matches with Backlund... vastly better matches... doesn't really reflect on Pat being great~! in those matches. On the flip, Slaughter-Patterson really is an off the charts performance by Slaughter rather than Pat being exceptional. His AWA work never really blew me away either. "Solid" and "good" rather than him jumping out as "great". I never got the same feel out of him that I did for Billy Robinson in those tags against Bockwinkel & Stevens and Stevens & Patterson where Billy felt flat out terrific in just about everything he did. I don't doubt Pat was a very good / really good worker. Top 2-3 in the world? No.

I think come 12/03/93 if one wants to put a finger on who the better "worker" was, it would be Kawada. But on who had the better "year", if you get the whole 1993 season set and supplement it with any oddball extra stuff (or more complete stuff) that's out there, even a Kawada Fan like myself would say that it was Kobashi. John

Pretty sure that Dave had several items going back through the year of Kawada heading over to join Taue. He might have been unclear in one of them, but think across the whole of them it was clear where Kawada was going. John

Hard to tell how much Stevens & Patterson ruled the roost as a tag team in SF. Stevens spent twice as much time as the dominant US champ, along with some time out on the shelf with injuries. Shibuya held the tag title longer with a couple of partners bookending the long stretch Stevens & Patterson had with the belt. As far as Patterson as a worker, I think most people would bet their houses that if you asked Pat who the better worker was, he'd point to Stevens. We're still on the eternal quest for Stevens looking terrific in a match... but since Stevens was something of a mentor to Pat, he's likely not blowing smoke. On Pat as a top 3 worker in the 70s, or even the WWF's MVP in 1979-80, not sure on either. Patera was the MVP in 1980 if we're looking at work. 1979 feels like Backlund, with the weaker matches between Backlund and Patterson very much feeling like Patterson was the one being lazy holding them back. Pat was 38 in 1979, 39 in 1980. The Destroyer was 39 for his 1969 match with Baba, and 43 in his 1973 match with Mil... both of which are better than anything we have of Pat on tape (unless we count Slaughter bumping and blading his ass off to make the boot camp match). Hard to imagine Pat was a better worker in the 60s than Beyers. John

That's what I thought, just wasn't sure. Been a long time since I read it. Good god... and I'm being blamed for keeping her out of the WON HOF?!?!

I considered pointing that out but since his reply would almost certainly be "They're not in the wrestling business, they're in the sports entertainment business. Just ask them if you don't believe me!" I didn't think there was any reason to tweet it. How about Motoko? Damnit! You beat me to it, Jose!!!!

I considered pointing that out but since his reply would almost certainly be "They're not in the wrestling business, they're in the sports entertainment business. Just ask them if you don't believe me!" I didn't think there was any reason to tweet it. Motoko Baba.

It's too bad that there's only a "Best Pro Wrestling Book" in the WON. This sounds like a good Worst Pro Wrestling Book candidate. It would also be fun to know how many of those SKeith would have won over the years. John

Yes, and the fact that he's named on that Home Alone poster actually strengthens the idea of him having some name value. How many WRITERS get top of the line credit? Richard Curtis was also "only" the writer on most of those films I mentioned. It's how he rolled, even back to the similar Pretty In Pink that he wrote and produced but didn't direct. He pretty much was more than a writer on those films, along with others. It was pretty much his production house, and he had a healthy ego to get his name out in front. John

NFL Viewers > WWE Viewers It took the NFL Networks years to get clearance. There were factors in it, such as the Carries having to pay the NFL Network for the channel rather than it being sub based (if that's the direction it's going). But angry WWE fans not being able to get Mania... it's not as big of a deal as we think if the cable companies are balking. Or to put it another way. Time Warner Cable's revenue in 2012 was $21.386B. How much of that do you think was off of Wrestlemania? Considering the WWE's entire domestic PPV revenue pulled from every carrier in the country was about $0.070B, Wrestlemania and angry WWE customers are kind of a fly on their ass. John

Doc-Dick in Japan is a tough comp for a number of reasons: * different time slots Doc's peak was in All Japan, where they were moved to worse time slots, and the show got cut to 30 minutes eventually. Pretty much all of Dick's time was while JWA, AJPW and NJPW were in choice time slots. A higher % of people watched pro wrestling on TV, so you see Dick on TV all the time. * open shop / closed shop Most of Dick's career was when the NWA and WWWF/WWF were supplying talent to Japan. Even guys who worked Japan a "lot" like the Funks or Dick didn't work every series, or even the majority of series. Hansen didn't for a big chunk of his career of traveling to Japan. Doc's career came during the time when your core gaijin worked and increasing number of series, eventually nearly all of them if not all of them for some. They became as regular as the natives. It meant that someone like Doc could be booked like the regulars, while there also weren't significant non-regulars coming in to eat up slots/spots. There wasn't an NWA champ coming in. The Funks weren't coming in for these 3 series a year. It was pretty much Baba's guys, and a few others like the Fantastics that might come in a time a year. So it makes it extremely hard to comp 1990-94 with 1980-84 or 1970-74. They're just different beasts. * * * * * What you can do is take a look at who were getting the title shots (i.e. the pushes) when Dick was in JWA and AJPW, and who was getting the more significant ones (i.e. the higher ranked title in the promotion such as Int'l vs UN, PWF vs UN, Int'l Tag vs All Asia Tag). Surprised me when working on title histories years ago. John

Murdoch's career in Japan, much like Ted DiBiase's, has long been overrated. A "star", someone who was on TV for years at a time when JWA, AJPW and NJPW had better time slots than they would later have. He just wasn't the Big Star that people make him out to be. John

Or they'd do as many companies have done and decrease or cut the bonus structure and just expect their employees to get by on their regular salary. The contract already gives the WWE the right to determine the payment amount, simply that it's structured by placement on the event, the type of event, whatever else the WWE wants to factor in (like buys), etc. The standard contract attempts to cover all forms of performance, and paying people for it. They do this to avoid unforeseen stuff like Ventura taking them to the cleaners over video releases. To a degree they could try to shove this under 7.2( b ) as a TV Taping. But if you're removing 11 PPV's from the schedule, and tossing them on the Net to attempt to gain PPV Buy Equivalents (i.e. subs), they'll likely add a 7.2 (d) that refers to "an amount only as is consistent with the nature of the match in which WRESTLER appears, i.e., preliminary, mid-card, main event, etc. and any standards PROMOTER establishes specifically for such WWE Network Appearances" or some such language. John

He just wanted a method to block gifs from sigs, not all sigs. There are some sites that are insanely masturbatory on their giffy sig.files, where it seems like 75% of the posters have created self indulgent epic gifs with every page is more sig.gif than text, and you get to the point where the value/annoyance of them collectively is "turn the fuckers off". I haven't noticed that as much here. John

Sounds like the WWE is in "Let's throw shit at the wall to see what sticks" mode with the Network. Never a good sign. John

The argument got worse, and two of the three who thought Suzuki was a dunker or good candidate never bothered to explain why. This is the level of thought people put into voting... John