Dylan Waco

The Gordy List I've spent the last several weeks doing research on the AWA in general and the last several months watching all the 80's AWA I can find. In the process of this Blackwell started to look like a pretty viable HoF contender to me. At very least someone who people should think about and someone who Dave should strongly consider putting on the ballot. I decided to condense everything I found into a "Gordy List" because it is an easier to consume format than the original data dump/with comments that I did at another board. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? Regarded is the tricky word here. He was certainly never the best draw in the World or the country. I do not think it is a big stretch to say he was one of the best draws in the country in 83 and 84. You could argue that he was the best draw in his promotion every year from 80-85, though I tend to think that is excessive. 80, 81 and 82 we just lack enough evidence to say one way or the other though at minimum he was one of the top two or three heels and one of the two freshest stars to emerge from the AWA during the period (the other being Hogan). The evidence does strongly suggest that he was the biggest heel draw in the promotion in 83 and the biggest draw in the promotion as both a face and a heel in 84. He was also clearly the most consistent and strongest drawing singles wrestler in the AWA in 85. 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? Not an international draw at all, unless one wants to argue for Winnipeg where Blackwell did great business over the years fits under this category (technically it does, but it seems wrong to consider a regular "loop" town in this equation). National is arguable though I would lean toward "no." Yes he did big numbers in the outlying towns of the AWA (Vegas, Salt Lake City and even popping the dead San Francisco town more than anyone else from that era), while being a main event level player in St. Louis at the same time. He also got at least some national exposure through the magazines, PWUSA, and eventually ESPN. Still there isn't much to indicate that he was a draw of any magnitude in his WWWF or Mid-Atlantic stints and you can't be a national draw if half the country is off the table. He was a strong regional star though and the company he was based out of covered a ******** of geographic territory, with Blackwell doing well across the board (in addition to the Western towns mentioned this would include Chicago, Green Bay, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Denver, et.). 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? We don't have enough figures to be sure but it is arguable that he was the biggest draw in the AWA from at least some of 1980 as his run v. Crusher was booked over title matches for a while and the Andre matches at the end of the year combined with the battle royals were probably the biggest (figuratively and literally) matches of the year that weren't for the AWA title. In 81 he was consistently in mains or semi-mains again including an excellent number v. Verne in Chicago (we don't have a number for the rematch sadly), more stuff v. Crusher and Baron, and a run as Hogan's first real "around the loop" main event opponent. 82 is dominated by High Flyers v. Blackwell/Adnan which was really the go to match for the bulk of the year. At times it wasn't a home run, but it held steady all year, did very good numbers in some cases and the stuff Blackwell did around the feud did well also. We also lack numbers from the big buildings in 82 which is too bad but if you use Winnipeg and SLC as a litmus test the territory was fairly hot. We don't really have the numbers, but Blackwell was a semi-main event/main event guy in St. Louis for the entire year as well working with and against Patera, Andre, Dick The Bruiser and others. In 83 Blackwell starts the year paired with Adnan v. both the High Flyers and Mad Dog/Baron in matches that do great business. This builds to the Verne/Mad Dog match v. Adnan/Blackwell that was the actual main event at Super Sunday which may have been the most financially successful show in AWA history (the popular mythology now is that this was "all" Bock v. Hogan - if you watch the tv leading into this, it's clear that's not true). Patera is brought in as his partner and the rest of the year the Sheiks are red hot working against a wide variety of top level opponents, setting up a feud with the High Flyers, and drawing huge numbers around the loop. Hogan was no doubt a factor and probably the biggest draw in the company, but at this point if you look at the figures it feels like the Sheiks are a strong number two on the depth chart of a company that is making serious cash. In fact, it's not absurd to consider them 1a to Hogan's 1 much like Slaughter arguably was with Hogan the next year in the WWF. Meanwhile in St. Louis he gets a huge push with a string of four straight main events, including a Missouri title win, an NWA title match against Flair and then dropping the Missouri title to Race. The next show he comes back and wins a Battle Royal along with working in a huge six-man semi-main keeping him strong. He then goes into a lengthy program with Hogan before finishing the year in semi-mains defending the AWA tag belts with Patera. Despite Hogan leaving the AWA stays hot in 84 on the strength of Sheiks, selling out in places like Chicago, Milwaukee and Green Bay that were FAR from guaranteed sellouts, drawing huge crowds in Salt Lake City and Winnipeg, culminating in another huge St. Paul show headlined by High Flyers v. Sheiks blowoff that is another one of the biggest shows in AWA history and the biggest drawing show of the year for the AWA. This was all done right after Hogan left and while Jumbo was champ - it's pretty clear who the draws were. Blackwell stays hot working in main events everywhere until his face turn at the sellout Battle Royal show. He takes a couple months off to sell the injury and business dies immediately around the loop. I mean a massive die off. When he returns he is the top face and business immediately spikes and is back up to excellent numbers by the end of the year with Blackwell in feature roles, if not main events, on every show. In St. Louis he is primarily utilized in tag teams though he does get some semi-main events and main events including a farmed out Brody match that does poorly on top. Still they appear to have faith in him down there for the most part and he was farmed out to Central States for a string of main events that year as well. The first five months of 85 are a mixed bag. Blackwell misses some time and it is clear the shows are worse off when he's not there. When he is there the numbers are down in the bigger arenas but they are still "good" and there are more good numbers than bad overall, including some huge numbers by AWA standards in San Fran and a run v. Adnan in double cage main events that did quality business. Starrcage does 12k, a good but disappointing number. Verne's split crews and westward expansion, were combining with the loss of talent and Vince's hardcore expansion to hurt. When Blackwell and the Roadies take a huge chunk of time off after May business tanks and it never really recovers despite the SuperClash show doing reasonably well. Blackwell works on, or near the top of several St. Louis shows as well, feuding with Race, winning a second Missouri title and co-main eventing what I think was the last 10k plus match in St. Louis Wrestling Club history. 80-82 we have really incomplete figures but we have tv footage that tells us the territory was hot and that Blackwell was a heavily pushed star in the very upper tier. We have some strong numbers. In 83-84 we have plenty of figures. Lots of sellouts. Lots of "standing room only" mentions. Lots of 10k plus shows in a territory that didn't run very many 10k plus venues, including some record setting numbers. 85 is quite the mixed bag, but he was a part of some huge shows and like with 84 when he was gone the company really croaked at the gate. Saying he was a top draw from mid-80 to mid-85 seems accurate. 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? He was definitely never regarded as any of the above. Looking back now you could certainly make the case that he was the best in ring performer in the AWA in 83, 84 and perhaps even 85. Having said that even among those who would be willing to go back and watch the footage I don't think Blackwell would be regarded as the superior of Bockwinkel, Martel or Hennig. He would probably be viewed as a top five AWA guy from 80-85 cumulatively and perhaps every year individually as well. 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in his class? I think anyone who paid attention to the AWA would have regarded him as the best in his weight class perhaps from the moment he debuted all the way through til 86. For his body type he was an athlete of a different order than anything that was seen at the time. Guys like Bundy and even Andre had some agility but Blackwell was on a different level. His big offense looked impressive, brutal and flashy all at once. He was an extremely good athlete, sort of a precursor to Bam Bam and Vader but with a body type that was more awkward then theirs which in a way makes his work even more impressive. He was also an excellent bumper that built well to his big bumps throughout the course of a match (or even a feud) and sold brilliantly as both a face and a heel. Pre-AWA is tough to say because of the lack of footage, but from 80-86 he was almost certainly the best worker in his weight class cumulatively. In terms of individual years some may put Andre ahead of him for the early years but by 83 I doubt many people would make that argument and no one else is in the discussion. 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? Based on the footage we have 80-85 are the years that we can be certain of. One could maybe quibble with the inclusion of 85 on account of Blackwell missing a fair amount of time and I'm not sure how much of his return later in the year is available. On the other hand some of the best matches and performances of his career were in the first part of 85. 80-84 strike me as pretty obvious and inarguable with a multitude of quality matches against a wide variety of opponents. 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? It is hard to peg when his prime really begins because of footage issues. The 78 match with Blackjack Mulligan is quite good and gives us a hint that Blackwell was already a very strong worker before he got to the AWA. I've had multiple people in the last week tell me they saw Blackwell in Mid-Atlantic in the mid-70's and he was a good worker there as well. Post-85 Blackwell still had some really good matches against a variety of opponents. He relied more on schtick and less on athleticism but was still good by any measure even against mediocre opponents. 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? This depends a lot on what one means by "excellent." If the standard is "MOTYC's" the answer is no. If the standard is matches that could be called great and part of the canon for the 80's and/or the promotion he worked for then I would say Blackwell has a solid body of "excellence," though not a "large body." He is hurt a bit by the fact that many AWA matches from early in his run were JIP and most of his pre-AWA work is unavailable/unseen on tape. He's not Bockwinkel and never was going to be but his best performances were excellent and he was almost always the best guy in the match he was in. The 83 Civic Center match teaming with Adnan v. Baron/Mad Dog is a serious contender for the best taped match in the history of the AWA. His performance in the Cage v. The High Flyers in 84 was incredible. He was also great in the Starrcage main event in 85 and had a hell of a singles match with Masked Superstar in 85 as well. That's scratching the surface really as Blackwell had a variety of quality matches with opponents running the gamut from Col. Debeers to Lawler (in Memphis) to Reed (in St. Louis) to Hansen to Brody to Verne and all points in between. It was more a case of consistent quality than dozens of blow-a-way great matches, but his best stuff is among the best stuff in the history of the promotion. 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? Though some might try and argue against it, I think Blackwell is one of a very small number of wrestlers from the 80's who anchored a promotion without holding the promotions top singles title (or secondary title for that matter) at any point. Looking back at the early 80's you could make the case there wasn't any one true anchor but a grouping of guys that were expected to do well in the top slots around the loop, with Blackwell among them. Still I would say that Bock and then Hogan were the closest things to true anchors until Hogan's departure in late 83. At that point Blackwell effectively became the anchor of the company and it could be argued he remained the anchor until business tanked when he was gone for the Summer of 85. At any rate he dominated the AWA in 84. Drew huge money as one half of the tag team champions with Patera in the front end of the year as a heel. Turned face in a sellout show at the Civic Center and took time off to sell an injury at which point business tanked. He comes back as the top face in the company and business immediately goes up and shoots through the roof with him on top of huge shows all over by years end. I would call being part of the top drawing heel act and the top drawing face act in the same year "anchoring a promotion" without hesitation. 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? Without question. In fact Blackwell was fairly unique in the sense that he was effective pushed at the top against a huge variety of opponents including his singles programs v. Mad Dog, Crusher, Verne, Andre, Hogan, Brody, Adnan, Race, Patera and Superstar as well as his tag programs v. The High Flyers, Mad Dog and friends, Dino and Martel and others. He consistently got over, drew money and got huge reactions regardless of opponent. 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? Before his prime he had varying degrees of success as a mid-carder in Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern and the WWWF. He did headline some in the WWWF during both of his stints there though those were primarily on the smaller spot shows (he had one Spectrum main event v. Backlund and some smaller headline matches v. Andre around the loop). He was a somewhat consistent semi-main event guy there and had programs with Ivan Putski, Monsoon, Strongbrow, Bobo Brazil among others. In Mid-Atlantic he had a moderate push teaming with Brute Bernard at one point and he did hold the SECW tag belts twice for the Fullers though neither reign meant much. He appears to have been a solid mid-card/upper mid-card act in Mid-Atlantic for parts of 77-78 as well. Post-prime his health made him incapable of working anything resembling a full load. He did some stints in Central States working all over the card and did have some success in the AWA in 86 where he was still one of the most over acts on the roster, headlining two of the four biggest drawing shows of the year (and the other two were Wrestlerock which was a loaded show and a Salt Lake City show with three title matches including a Ric Flair NWA title match effectively making it a "supercard" of sorts) and being Hansen's best drawing challenger. He was a utility player from that point forward but still got good reactions on the shows. 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? Absolutely. In fact Blackwell had a strong impact on the entire run from 80-84, a very strong over all period for the company. It is arguable - if not likely - that he was the most important heel in the promotion for that entire stretch surpassing even Bockwinkel who was champion for much of that period. He also had great value after his face turn and was a main even level player in St. Louis during a solid run for that town. 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? Yes. Many of the details have already been run down above, but it is worth repeating the fact that Blackwell was involved in several feuds with a variety of wrestlers that did well at the box office. Perhaps more importantly this was almost immediate upon his arrival in the AWA as even his series with Dino Bravo was well placed on the cards and after that he was a consistent top level guy. His on again/off again feuds with Mad Dog and Crusher were solid "go to's" around the loop for almost his entire run. He was clearly the right opponent for both Andre and Hogan when they came in and was consistently paired with them at key points to the point where the term "rivalry" doesn't seem out of place. The High Flyers feud was a huge money maker that the company went to twice with Blackwell teaming with both Adnan and Patera producing memorable matches. His face turn and run against Adnan/Brody was very memorable and something the crowd was clearly ready (and excited) for. The biggest notch in his belt would be the value he had in getting over the need for Mad Dog and Verne to unite for the Super Sunday main event against Blackwell and Adnan - a show that may have been the most financially successful in the history of the promotion. I'm not privy to the details of his run in St. Louis, but he appears to have had lengthy programs v. Hogan, Patera and Race there that would indicate some success with the live crowds in the area. 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? No question about it. Blackwell was very good on the mic, perhaps one of the more underrated guys from his era. He was excellent at getting across key points of his character or storyline and putting over his opponent at the same time which is something that other talented mic workers weren't always so great at. His promos/skits putting over his girth/power are some of the most entertaining in the history of the AWA. He was also quite good at getting over a storyline during the course of a match and was involved in some key angles. A couple of high points would be the Civic Center tag with Adnan v. Baron/Mad Dog that led to a riot when Blackwell and Adnan attacked Verne post-match (kick starting an angle that would lead to the aforementioned arguable peak show in AWA history) and the great face turn angle in the 84 Battle Royal also in St. Paul. Both angles would rate among the most intense and dramatic in company history and while the wait on the Blackwell return while he sold the injury sustained in the Battle Royal was brutal for business, both were ultimately financially successful. 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? Definitely. In particular he was excellent at getting over his girth as a weapon but without coming across as a blubbering clown. His showmanship in the ring was really impressive as he was very good at milking the big bumps and big spots. He was very good at staying dangerous and vulnerable which is a fine line for big men. He was also excellent during the period he was paired with Adnan as the traitor to his country who sold out for money. His babyface turn was extremely effective and got over massive largely as a result of Blackwell's personality and his ability to sell a beating. Blackwell played multiple roles and played all of them quite well. 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? Blackwell held very few titles over the course of his career. By far the most important was his AWA tag title run with Ken Patera which was extremely important to the promotion, carrying it at the box office in the wake of the company losing their biggest singles star. He was a two time co-holder of the Southeastern Championship Wrestling tag belts though it seems as though the reigns meant little. He was also a two time winner of the Missouri Title in St. Louis. Neither of his reigns appear to have meant all that much, but it is worth noting that that title was reserved almost exclusively for top level stars (http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/mo/mo-h.html). 17. Did he win many honors and awards? No, though it could easily be argued that this was as a result of when and where he worked. 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? Like most of the AWA guys from the period he got some local mainstream exposure, though probably not to the degree of a guy like Verne or Hogan. On a national level he did not. I don't know how well covered he was by PWI or their affiliated mags, but from what I know of PWI, the AWA wasn't really their bread and butter. 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? Absolutely. Blackwell is one of the more unheralded tag workers of all time. His tag team with Adnan (who was by no measure a good worker) was quite good at building heat, working an angle, and taking big paybacks from the babyfaces. The Patera version of the Sheiks was just as good at this with more polished heat sections. Blackwell carried the load with both of those teams, usually with his impressive offensive spots and his dynamic bumping and selling which he seemed to really excel at in a tag environment. Even his makeshift units with guys like John Studd and King Kong Bundy produced quality matches regardless of opponent largely on the strength of Blackwell's efforts. Blackwell has multiple memorable and great tag matches to his credit, including some of the top matches in the history of the AWA. It also should be reiterated that Blackwell's teams were massive draws at the box office - something that cannot be said of many other quality teams from that era. 20. Was he innovative? He was certainly one of the first really athletic big men and to my recollection is the only non-luchador big man who carried so much weight in such a small frame while still being able to hit visually impressive spots/bumps. Not sure "innovative" is the right word for that though, even if he was sort of a "first" in that regard. 21. Was he influential? I would say "no." It may be notable that he was such a big bumping and athletic big man. Andre could do that sort of stuff before him but he packaged it differently. When you see someone like Vader, Bam Bam or even Yoko hitting big athletic spots or taking big bumps it certainly looks more Jerry Blackwell than it does Andre. Having said that I'm not sure any of them would cite Jerry as their influence. 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? Definitely yes. For much of his AWA run he was paired off against older and/or limited wrestlers and he made it work every time. Blackwell had the unique ability to make questionable looking offense look brutal or effective with his bumping and selling (while maintaining his credibility as a bruiser) which was of huge value when paired off against wrestlers like Crusher or Baron Von Raschke. It is easy to underestimate how hated Adnan was, but it is also clear the immense value Blackwell brought as a tag team partner and member of his stable. It is also worth noting that Ken Patera had his last run of significance teaming with Blackwell in an extremely effective, money drawing and solid in ring team. Even late in his career he was unusually good carrying weak wrestlers to watchable/quality matches given his increasingly obvious physical limitations and health problems. 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? I know of nothing to indicate that Blackwell was unprofessional. He did seem to miss a fair number of shows over the years, but that was likely health related and it is notable that his push was never effected in any way. Despite never getting a singles title during his AWA run he was consistently pushed at the top of the cards and seemed to understand that he had more value in that respect than he would as a major title holder. Perhaps he could be criticized for allowing his health to slip so quickly and at such a relatively young age, but his gimmick was predicated on being a big man. 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? I think it is almost indisputable that Blackwell is underrated in almost every respect and I think the evidence reflects that. I also think the evidence suggests that he was better than he may have appeared. Because of his health and weight he had a relatively short career by the standards of the time. Because of the fact that he never held a singles title, and was not an old guard AWA figure his contributions are easier to dismiss or even forget for those who were not fans of the AWA. Finally the AWA of Blackwell's era is a promotion/territory that is not as heavily explored as others.

He was wasted often. The US Express was a MASSIVE waste of his talent. They have matches I like, but putting Windham with Rotundo is the ultimate in saddling a great guy with feces. One thing I would stress is that I really love Barry's early 90's run in WCW. Several excellent performances in tags and excellent singles matches as well.

I certainly don't think Bigelow is great but certainly capable and that still doesn't excuse Barry from encouraging a positive reaction to himself as a heel. I haven't watched the match in some time and that may be a valid point. Of course if encouraging a positive reaction to himself as a heel is a serious criticism it's time to start shitting on Flair hard.

This clarifies a lot. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but it makes me understand your position more. Because it's not the only reason and because we have a fundamental disagreement about whether or not post-prime (or pre-prime I assume as well) work has any meaning at all. Your position is that at best it's a "bonus" and at worst it is totally irrelevant to a GOAT debate. I don't agree with that at all. To me if a guy who has broken down or lost something can reinvent himself, still stay relevant and still have lots of good/great matches after the point when he was his sharpest that is a clear and obvious plus. If he can do this consistently it is a huge plus. To take one year I like Funk in 94 a lot. Is he top five in the world? No. Top ten? Probably not. Top twenty? I'd say yes and that is a huge plus for someone at that stage of their career. It's not something you build a GOAT case around, but it seems silly to discard it just because it occurred after his prime. If all I cared about was prime Buddy Rose is one and El Dandy's two. Funk would probably make my top ten under such a metric. In all probability we have virtually no prime Bockwinkel - do we disregard his career entirely? I get the argument that prime matters most and basically agree with it. But we just have a massive disagreement about work outside of someone's prime. Taking this a bit further, I don't really think Flair was at the level of Buddy Rose in 83 if I'm being 100 percent honest. I think Flair is great during that period and the gap isn't massive, but it takes me about a tenth of a second to come to the conclusion that I prefer Rose. I think Fujinami and Choshu are better that year too. In all honesty I think Bockwinkel and Blackwell had better years than Flair that year offhand. I think Lawler was better that year. Is he really better than Sarge or Steamboat that year? I can't think of the matches to support the argument offhand. If we had more footage I'm confident the consensus would be that Sangre Chicana was better that year. It's entirely possible if I watched the full range of stuff that's out there for 83 Flair wouldn't make my top ten for the year. Even at this moment he'd have zero chance at my top five and I don't really think he's on the level of people who I would have above him. Does that mean I should discount that year in any GOAT argument for him? Because it's not his entire case, it's a piece of his case and not a particularly huge one. I also disagree with the tone of the first sentence. He had good matches more often than not, against a wide variety of opponents, in a wide variety of settings in the 90's. He wasn't Lanny Poffo. This is all great and dandy for Flair, because there were huge periods where he was a pathetic old man limping through his 80's routine to mixed results. There is Terry Funk I don't like (very little of it - far less than Flair) and Jerry Lawler I don't like and Genchiro Tenryu I don't like. But by and large, even years past their primes these are guys that could and did have good matches more often than not. Jerry Lawler was arguably top ten in the world a couple of years ago. Tenryu was one of the best guys on earth at points in the 00's. Were they in their primes? No way. Did they adapt well enough to see be great wrestlers with the tools they had in the settings they were working in? Absolutely. If someone wants to argue that prime is all that matters in a GOAT debate that is fine and it's a viewpoint I've encountered many times in the past. But it's a viewpoint I have an extreme disagreement with and that's not going to change any time soon. If I was interested solely in discussing wrestlers I enjoy watching a lot at the expense of those I thought were better every thread would be about Bobby Bass and J.T. Smith. The reason people discuss things that are new to them more is because they are new to them. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If someone feels like somebody is overpimping someone because they are a "new" find they can call them out on it. Hopefully that discussion won't take the shape of "TRENDZ!' but if we are being honest that's likely to be the direction a debate like that would go in which is why I generally don't like it. And yes I'm fully aware that someone could make the same complaint about my criticism of modern NJPW fetishism, but at least I bother to watch the stuff I'm calling overrated. I have seen some AAA Rey, not a ton, but I would never assume he was great in Mexico. I have been arguing that Rey's prime was in the WWE for years now, probably as long or longer than anyone I know actually. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was a lot of disappointing AAA Rey. I like WCW era Rey a good bit, but I clearly think he's a peg down from WWE Rey though I think it's impressive how differently he worked both places. Having said that based on what I've seen Rey was certainly a very good wrestler by 95. He wasn't good in 2000 WCW but no one was and he's had big periods with injuries. But he's appeared on tv a lot over the years. I've watched a lot of Flair over the years, but I don't remember Flair having the depth of quality tv matches Rey does. Maybe it's just that I haven't watched the tv in years.

On the Bigelow match it's important to remember that Bigelow is one of the most overrated wrestlers in history. The narrative of him being a "great" big man is so played out at this point it's comical. I've seen a lot of Bigelow over the years and while there is no question he was pretty good and a good athlete he usually under performs. I like the Starrcade match with Barry, but it's not outstanding. I think Barry was a tremendously great wrestler. I would have no problem with someone who said he was a better tv match wrestler than big show wrestler, because I don't think he was booked in a way that gave him as many big show opportunities anyhow. I could point to big show matches of his I really enjoyed and that I think are all time greats, but the guy was very good on television. As I have said before I also think he was among the best tag workers I've ever seen. As in top five at absolute worst. Maybe I'll watch some Barry soon and give more specific thoughts.

Loving all of these reviews. I really want to watch Regal v. Badd now as I have no memory of those.

Billy Joe Travis v. Hugo Savonivich - 1991 This is the Anniversary show and there are a shit ton of people there. WCW and WWF would have fucking moved heaven and earth to have a crowd like this at that point. This goes about five minutes and is totally awesome. Seriously one of the best matches of this length I've ever seen and completely satisfying. Travis comes out and is getting pelted with shit and he seems to revel in it which just means more shit is going to get thrown at him. I have no clue what the back story is here - my guess is Travis beat Hugo's ass during an interview segment or something as I think Hugo was already working mainly in the booth at this point - whatever the case the story of the match is that Hugo is out Memphis'ing the guy from Memphis. He lashes the fuck out of him with a belt at the jump. Billy Joe takes over with a low blow and they end up fighting by home plate. I don't give a shit what anyone says the best thing about Puerto Rican wrestling is that you get to see guys fighting in the infield of a baseball diamond so naturally I loved that, but the detail here was really great as Travis was measure his shots, leaning down to perfectly plant an uppercut and then doing this great running stomp that was much better than it sounds on paper. Hugo comes back with a huge chop that Travis leaps right into, followed by a dropkick that he takes a wild staggering bump off of. Back in the ring and they go to a chain with Hugo working it to gain an advantage. Travis is getting his face ripped at and is great throughout this running through the shots for nice looking bumps, but also trying to beg off only for Hugo to keep coming forward because he ain't falling for that Memphis shit, he's bringing that Memphis shit. Travis eventually gets a hold of chain and makes a big deal about going up top to drop a bomb with it onto Hugo. But Hugo has been watching his Memphis tapes and brings the powder and tosses it right into Billy Joe's eyes as he comes off the top and then hits him with an elbow drop for the finish. This was pretty much perfect for what they were going for. Andre The Giant v. Abdullah The Butcher - 1983 This will not be for everyone, but I thought this was a really fun match. Andre enters by stepping over the barricade and they go right to it. Andre's offense is some simple but looks every bit as massive as he is and Abby bumps for him more than he does for most. Abby's offense is Abby's offense. I like the thrusts and headbutts, but we don't get any close up of the stabbings which hurts the effect a little. Still Andre is really great selling the impact of the blows. Not surprisingly this ends with Andre picking up some massive fixture on the ground and tipping into onto Abby before they brawl to the back. Short match, but the sort of thing that you want out of two giant freaks. Stan Hansen v. Carlos Colon - Bullrope Match 2/87 I thought the Cage Match was really great and the Bullrope/Chain/Strap gimmick is not something I am a huge fan of. Having said that on first watch this felt like one of the best matches of the 80's. Not one of the best as in "good enough to make an 80's Set." I mean one of the best as in "if someone had this in there top twenty for the decade I would be hard pressed to disagree with that." WWC matches always benefit some from the atmosphere, but the atmosphere here is really incredible as it has a sort of Wrestlemania feel in this big outdoor arena (Roberto Clemente Stadium?) but with full seating coming up alongside the ring unlike a lot of their shows. Hansen shows up and just whips the Bullrope at Colon almost as a challenge and the match is just a complete war from the start. Hansen charges forward with a boot, but Colon catches him and just goes straight to town. Hansen gets busted open almost immediately and is really great bumping round like a lunatic for the boss. The face shine is really strong and gets the crowd primed for this one big time. One of the things I really like about this is that both guys take advantage of the bell at key moments to deliver huge shots. I also like how every time Colon got into a disadvantaged position he would do something to out think Hansen, whether it be an early eyepoke from over his shoulder, a great spot where he cut off the momentum of Hansen when he was going to touch the corners by sliding out to the floor, or just evading a big corner charge for a huge bump. They really make the most out of this gimmick as there are several great struggle spots where Hansen in particular looks like he has is gonna make it to the fourth corner to win the match and Carlos is just able to pull him away. I give Hansen tons of credit for milking this moments in really effective ways and making the whole thing seem like a constant struggle. No inches were given in this match. The big pay off here is the finish as Hansen looks to be almost there after cutting down Colon's hulk up spot with a sick bell shot. He realizes he can't quite make it, turns around for the death shot, but Colon back body drops and then stumbles through to touch the fourth corner and win the match. Just excellent stuff. The best match of it's kind I've ever seen including Piper/Valentine and Vader/Sting. Stan Hansen v. Carlos Colon - 1987 I am sticking with this feud because it has only done me right so far. This one starts off like the last one, a total war with both guys going right at each other and Colon taking over by beating Stan with his own rope and smashing his face onto the wooden platform holding up the ring while he's still walking around in his straps. They brawl out into the crowd/field and Hansen is knocking shit over while Colon throws him into anything he can. Hansen tries to fight back, but Colon has this look on his face that is just great as he is registering the blows but also feeding off the crowd and comes right back at him. Colon goes for his roundoff/Hulk up bit but Hansen hits him with a deep slam which only buys him a few seconds before he's back on the defensive. A few seconds later he is finally able to gain some real momentum with a double leg and low blow, which allows him to take over and get his chaps off. A seriously great opening to this. Hansen takes over and it's like he knows it's not his night as he immediately starts going for big shots on Colon to keep him down. You could argue that Colon's first hope spot is too soon, but it's a minor complaint and Stan puts him right back on his ass. Colon keeps trying to counter by going to the leg which is awesome because the figure-four is his big move. Stan cuts him down to size and knees the fuck out of him but goes to the well once to often which opens up more leg work. Colon takes a lot of this and I could see that being a complaint from some, but he comes across as the best possible Bruno here, an ethnic hero, up against a tough challenger that knows he's on foreign turf. For his part Hansen keeps coming forward and making runs, but keeps making mistakes that get his leg in trouble. He is great selling the shit out of this and Colon is great making him pay. I really loved the spot with Hansen going to the floor thinking it would give him an advantage and Carlos still going to work on his leg even out there. This leads to an awesome moment as Hansen fights through and just heaves a chair at Carlos head in desperation. The final bit of this is somewhat disappointing. I had hoped they were leading up to Hansen stealing a win. Instead they do a bit where Hansen is in the figure-four forever and tries everything to escape before grabbing a hold of a crutch and cracking Colon with it for the DQ. The struggle in the figure-four is actually really good with Hansen trying all sort of things to break free, but the finish is still unsatisfying. Still this was a very good match, that brushed up closely to greatness at times and might have gotten there with a more compelling finish. Stan Hansen v. Carlos Colon - 11/86 This has the same ambush opening of the last match, but is worked far more even. In a sense it helps the last match which came after this and was probably something of a Colon payback affair. Colon does get first blood here on Stan, but Hansen get some series licks in himself. I really liked Hansen's early legwork in this even if it was short lived and I also liked him bashing Colon on various fixtures all over the ball park as a bit of payback. Hansen ends up missing a lariat against the post and Colon attacks his arm some before honing in on Hansen's cut which is really nasty. Just when you think this is starting to get too one sided again Hansen loads up his elbow pad and lariat's the fuck out of Colon. A pro-Colon official shows up and stops the ref from making the count and Hansen fucking snaps and destroys Colon with a piledriver, before running out to the floor and crushing the official with a loaded lariat too. Really awesome sprint. That last match I watched really does make more sense in this context and Hansen running out of the stadium antagonizing fans and covered in blood is an awesome visual. Stan Hansen v. Carlos Colon - 1986 Holy shit this time Hansen storms the ring from behind Colon and gets at him first, knocking him out on his ass. The ref tries to break this up and Stan beats the fuck out of him! Hansen ties the rope around Carlos neck and then whips him from post to post. Then he beats his ass with the WWC belt. Meanwhile fans are throwing shit at the ring, so Stan runs at them kicking, while the paramilitary style cops run around trying to keep order. Hansen grabs the table the bell was on and literally destroys it smashing it into Colon. Colon is a bloody mess and a second ref shows up at this point but Hansen can only get a near fall on Colon. Colon sort of makes a comeback by evasion, so Stan says fuck this and throws Colon back out to the floor where he chokes him out over the guardrail while trolling the fans. You've got to be either really brave or really stupid to do that in Puerto Rico. Back in the ring and Carlos starts to flurry, so Stan headbutts him but of course it hurts him more. Gotta love that racist standard existing even in PR. Hansen cuts him back down anyhow and fucking stiffs him with an elbow for another near fall. Carlos puts together another big flurry of punches, but Colon gets kicked in his face for his trouble and shortly thereafter eats a modified lariat in the corner. Stan has him down for the fall, but pulls up his shoulder. Hansen goes for the lariat off the ropes, but Carlos blocks it and hits a dropkick. And now the tide has turned. Carlos beats Stan's ass all around ringside, busts him open, does his round off and then starts biting at the cut as only he can. He holds Hansen up in the corner and mule kicks him right in the fucking balls which naturally can only be followed up with a jumping toe touch (what else?). A second ref gets knocked over and Hansen is just getting peppered with shots. Fucking Al Perez (I think?) of all people shows up and passes something to Hansen who loads up his elbow pad for the lariat, the finish and the title. Man this was pretty fucking awesome too. These are the only five Hansen/Colon matches I can find on youtube, but even if that's it this is one of the most unheralded wrestling feuds of all time. Excellent stuff. Dick Murdoch v. Carlos Colon - Barbed Wire Match 1991 I love Dick Murdoch showing up to a barbed wire match wearing his same old gear likes it's no big deal at all. The first barbed wire contact is Murdoch's ass which he sells in a standard silly Murdoch way. Murdoch's manager is suspended above the ring in a cage and drops something into the ring which Dick uses as a weapon for a bit, but Carlos gets a hold of it and Murdoch gets rubbed against the wire. Murdoch sees his own blood and heats up a bit but he eats a big punch and stumbles face first into the wire which was a nice spot. Murdoch goes back on offense after a low blow and Colon finally taste the wire. Murdoch's manager has a fucking chalk board and is lowering it down into the ring with words of advice on it. That might be the best thing I've ever seen in the history of wrestling. Dick opens up on Carlos with the big shots and has him bloody on the ropes. He pauses long enough read another message from above and it gives Carlos the time he needs to fire up. Man Murdoch's reactions to the wire are really over the top to the point where I'm not sure if they are good or bad. Murdoch cuts him off and hits a piledriver but that asshole manager in the cage fucks him again by lowering a foreign object into the ring which Carlos gets a hold of and uses as a weapon for the fall. Very entertaining match. It's not great but it's safely good. Post-match Colon gets to the manager in the cage and makes him pay for being a shitty manager.

Should I bring the results stuff into this thread? I kind of want to but it's not essential as I have thread over on Classics. Anyhow I'm sure people who are watching the AWA Set have thoughts on his career. I have watched pretty much all of the other Blackwell I can find on youtube and other places and I think at this point we can say he was a really tremendous wrestler. Of big guys only Vader is ahead of him and even there I'm not totally convinced of it. We tend to see his peak as 80-85 and I don't disagree with that, but we have pieces from before then that really show flashes of greatness. Some of his WWF matches v. total zeros and undercard guys are impressive displays for what they are. The Mulligan match from MACW tv in 78 is very good and I don't think there is any question that Blackwell is the guy carrying the work load. There is a very fun Blackwell v. Murdoch match on youtube that is built entirely around a bodyslam with both guys looking sharp for an arena match that clearly wasn't intended to be much of anything. There are flashes after that where even broken down he is able to carry scrubs like Kevin Kelly or Boris Zhukov, have a fun ladder match with Debeers, or tear the house down with Hansen in Oakland. I really wish we had some of his work from Georgia but alas we don't. Still any time he would pop back up in the AWA he looked good despite his limitations. In some ways Blackwell is a sad case because he didn't often get to work the best of the best. There is no Blackwell v. Verne that exists in full. Or v. Bock. Or v. Martel. Or v. Hennig. Instead we get Blackwell in some excellent tag team matches, Blackwell as the Cage Match king, Blackwell carrying a zero like Brody to several good maches, Blackwell having a very fun match with a very old Crusher, Blackwell and Bravo having a really solid match built around psychology, Blackwell having a legitimately great match with Mad Dog Vachon years after his peak, Blackwell in a fun matches v. Superstar, Adnan, Kamala and others, et. We do have him v. Hansen when he was past his prime (still a great match), v. Lawler, v. Butch Reed in a great match in St. Louis, v. Harley in St. Louis (good match that I think Blackwell did the bulk of the interesting work in), but it is a shame that he didn't get to work people closer to being his equal more often. On the other hand the fact that he had so many quality performance in spite of this is a major plus. Blackwell was both a great heel and a great face in the ring. In fact in 1984 he was the best heel and the best face in the AWA. Obviously he was agile for a guy his size, but it wasn't just that he could and did take big bumps or that he had some impressive spots. He also had some fun and varied offense that he would tailor from opponent to opponent. Not uncommon to watch him do bizarre but awesome looking versions of standard spots like a falling headbutt or elbow drop. Not uncommon to see him break out a powerslam when you think something else is coming, or a Samoan drop that he really measures to make it look especially nasty. He is an all time great brawler, but also was magnificent at working hopespots and cutoffs both as a face and a heel. His facial expressions and body language were big reasons he was able to overcome albatrosses like Brody and Crusher. One thing I have enjoyed that isn't talked about is Blackwell in Japan. It's nothing that will blow you away, but watching him mach up opposite someone like One Man Gang in that setting is a hell of a lot of fun and he knows exactly how to play it. Tonight Matt D found this match I had never seen and sent it to me. It's Funk, Jumbo and Tenryu v. The Destroyer, Ron Bass and Blackwell. It's a good look at Terry as a good FIP as well, though they fuck that up with an odd spot where he just rolls over to tag out (that's actually a common criticism I have of some 80's AJPW tags). Still this is a really fun match and I think Blackwell really shines in it. To be fair everyone looks pretty good, but we get to see Blackwell strutting about, working brickwall until he eats a surprise Jumbo knee, cutting Funk off in a really awesome fashion by leaping at him through the ropes, busting out some fun offense including weird elbow drop variations I've never seen, a great Samoan drop, a really sweet gut punch, a great avalanche and a very good looking suplex. We get a huge Blackwell bump off of the top as well. I think he was my favorite guy in the match which says a lot considering who was in the match. Here is the link for those who want to watch it and I would encourage people to post their AWA Set and other Blackwell thoughts in here even if I do drag my results stuff over here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8pEp4mQJ4

I would rate the Martel feud over the Adonis feud, but that is splitting hairs.

I back this a hundred percent. For the record Regal would place very well on my overall depth chart. I don't have a problem getting over the fact that he wasn't as pushed as other guys. But I do think it's one of the reasons he doesn't get talked about as an upper tier guy as much as others.

Heh. I mentioned the flaws in the data in a note over at Classics. I wonder if Dave will respond to it. I get the feeling Dave doesn't see Patera as a particularly strong candidate and is almost annoyed that I'm working on this stuff, but I could be reading him wrong. In any event he was very dismissive of Patera's 199 major market main events in his original note without even noticing/caring that major markets is drastically different than main eventing any little show, let alone the fact that he didn't mention the "going on last" flaw in his comment which is a pretty glaring omission for anyone who is familiar with the WWF during that period. I did note that by Chris metrics Patera does quite well on the surface finishing "first" in that dubious category in 1980 and fifth in 1977 which were his only two complete years in the WWF, with a combined 160 "main events." In other words if I really wanted to pad the stats for Patera I could...very easily.

This rivals Musgrave's anti-Texan post.

I love the SN match between Regal and Larry. That might be a match I would consider on that level. It is easily my favorite Regal match ever. Their other matches are very good to great but not incredibly great. I like the Arn match and think it gets an unfair label but I wouldn't call it off the charts. That Regal-Finlay feud was something I actually didn't like as much as others on first watch. I thought they were good and maybe very good but not great. I like Regal a lot mind you and he's someone who'd definitely finish high on a top 100 list when I do one again. Plus, if I ever get an income maybe I'll purchase your Regal comp and possibly find gems that constitute what I call a really great and tremendous match. He has too many good/very good/ and a fair number of great matches. With the exception of the Larry SN match which is something I would consider, I don't think he has anything really great or tremendous. What hurts Regal is that he doesn't have the "big match" setting to a lot of his matches. I think Regal has many great matches, but they aren't driven by powerful storylines or tons of t.v. time to get over the feud that is being pushed. I am not super high on his initial t.v. title run because I think he was pretty bad about telegraphing that his matches were going to draws (in contrast to Arn for example who was better at making you believe things hung on a thread at any moment), but the work was solid and he was still green in the States. He has some periods when he got fat where he wasn't sharp. But there is more meat to Regal than he gets credit for. I think the Hash match is great, the Finlay matches, the Larry Z SN match, the Arn match in question, the best Benoit matches, the Ambrose match, the Christian matches and other things. But again they don't have a transcendent feel because the promotion wasn't pushing him hard. That lack of big time feel can be hard for some people to overcome. It's a reason I 've seen some people sell Buddy short in the past.

Flair at his best is an excellent micro wrestler which is part of the reason I think boiling his case down to output is cheating him. He does do those little things well often. Yes he has flaws and at times they are glaring even in otherwise good matches. But Flair was a good micro performer by and large and great at it during his peak.

I think it's a monumental difference because I can find many, many exceptions to that metric with very little effort. Whether or not there is a better system is irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not that metric is perfect. I have been accused of being hyperbolic (with good reason) more than most anyone but when I see perfect I think "flawless or so close to flawless that the exceptions are pure flukes." I don't think Great Match Theory (or whatever you want to call it) is even close to being perfect. I'm an agnostic on whether or not it is the best, but if the application of it comes down to filling out a chart where you list the good/great matches of everyone and nothing else is considered I think that's a pretty uninteresting and terrible way of analyzing wrestling. Number of great performances may not be the same as number of great matches. I actually had assumed up until reading this that you meant great matches and not good matches. But in any event you can find plenty of exceptions even here with very little effort (who has more good matches on tape Randy Orton or La Fiera? Christian or Buddy Rose? Robert Gibson or Sgt. Slaughter? Ultimo Dragon or Hoshino? et.). I think if someone has a lot of good matches it's a pretty good indicator that they are good worker. But I see no reason to believe that having a higher volume of good matches than someone else is reason alone to rate one person over the other. Far too many cases where I think that is obviously untrue for me to run with that. If the ingredients in creating the finished product is talent, and we can analyze it closely enough where it does not come down to raw mechanics alone, then I see zero reason why number of good matches should be the sole metric for arguing who was better. I want to be clear about this because I'm not positive I'm reading you correctly, but at this point your argument seems dangerously close to being purely mathematical. I am reading you as saying the rough equivalent of "yes it's possible for someone to be mechanically better, know how to put a match together better, know how to play a role better, be more logical, et. but all that matters is volume of output." On this point I honestly don't know where we can go because you seem to be trending very close to the "X has more good matches than Y so X is better regardless of what happens in said matches" territory and that's something I completely disagree with on every level. I don't think Randy Orton is better than La Fiera and I can give you a litany of reasons why. But I cannot tell you I have seen more good La Fiera matches than Randy Orton matches - I haven't. I can tell you I think he was far more versatile, far better at emoting, far better offense, far better brawler, far better big spots, far better timing, far better at putting a match together, far better in tags/multiman scenario, far better on the mat, far better at selling, infinitely better bumper, far better at running the ropes, far better ring gear, far better facial expressions, far better pacing, far better strikes, et. But all of that sounds like "ingredients" to me and with the footage we have Orton has far more good matches. He has more output. If you don't like that comp we could pick others. Comp Sarge to Gibson, Christian to Rose, or pick your own. It's not hard to find them. Christian having more "output" than Buddy Rose will never make him a better wrestler in my mind because those ingredients are pretty damn important (not a knock on Christian who I like, but you get the point) whether you want to call them "talent" or something else. I honestly can't imagine anyone watching South/Flair and Bock/Milliman back-to-back and thinking Bock/Milliman was better. Not saying it's impossible, but if you polled a hundred people on that I'm not sure even five would go Bock/Milliman. I wouldn't and I am guy who loves logic in wrestling. But I would call Bock's performance better. Whether you want to call that "talent" doesn't matter all that much to me, though I must say again that I think the end game of your argument comes dangerously close to "it doesn't matter what someone does in a match, what matters is the result." And I can't possibly disagree more. I'm not saying if someone has a better match with a common opponent they are automatically better than someone else. Obviously I don't believe that. Having said that the gap is not always Benoit/Honaga level and if we are being honest Benoit is a lot more "talented" than Honaga is as well. If Honaga had five more good matches than Benoit I don't think it automatically follows that he would have been a better wrestler. Hell if he had a hundred more good matches than Benoit I don't think it automatically follows that he would be the better wrestler. There is no reason to preface things with in my opinion. I almost never do it. But when you dismissively joke that arguing about the quality of stomps is an exercise in subjectivity, I think it's worth remembering that so is everything else we do on this board. Sure stomps are not as important as good matches, but I think it is very easy to argue that "ingredients" are if not as important, pretty damn close. The point is not "everything is subjective, thread ender!" The point is the subjectivity of all of this is universal. And that subjectivity applies to the method for deciding who the GOAT is even if we stick within the general framework of good/great matches. You said on the podcast that you are someone who came to your own conclusions on Flair over the last five or six years of watching. But you voted him one in the Smarkschoice poll. He is in your avatar. You generally have positive things to say about a lot of Flair matches where there is not a general consensus and a lot of people aren't terribly high on the matches. I don't believe you are rubber stamping Flair because he's your favorite (though I freely admit that I probably give Funk a little leeway because he's mine), but then I talk to you about wrestling an awful lot. An outsider who noticed those things though might say "I think Loss is rigging the game for Flair. I can understand having a negative reaction to that. But I am basing it on some things I have observed over the years, specifically as it relates to his comments and thoughts in my bubble of the message board universe." Now there is nothing wrong with making either observation. But once it's out there, it's out there and the result is usually that people don't trust what the other side is saying. I've been guilty of doing this sort of thing in the past and still do at times, but I try to avoid it more and more because I think it is generally bad for good discussion. My dislike for Jumbo goes beyond the narrative of him being the greatest ever, though I have zero problem saying that the constant "he's the best ever!" drum beating probably contributed to my general disinterest in him. Joshi is a style that doesn't age well to me. 90's AJPW is just something I've watched a ton of and it's something that is harder to watch on the fly than syndicated WCW or new Lucha. If I were to do a top hundred again Jumbo, Kawada, Taue, Kobashi, Misawa, Hokuto, Kong and others would all do well in spite of these things. This is entirely fair. The flipside of course is that just because something has been accepted for years doesn't mean that it's true. DK/TM series largely sucks. Brody is trash. Inoki isn't even close to an upper tier Japanese wrestler. New stuff will always get talked about more AND IT SHOULD. It does not follow from this that new things are innately better. Buddy really isn't talked about that much outside of here which is too bad. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of new opinions, but one of the great things about the modern landscape is that you don't just have to accept them. When Dave Meltzer says the most recent Tokyo Dome show is very possibly the best show in history I can watch it, review it and post my thoughts on it to open forums on the web within a day or two (or even in real time had I ordered the ippv and watched it live). When Loss says Jeff Jarrett is possibly a top twenty U.S. wrestler ever, we can go to the yearbooks to see what the hell he's talking about and decide whether or not we think he's being hyperbolic or offering a keen insight on an overlooked wrestler. There is no lag anymore while we wait around on tapes to be distributed. The footage is out there in various forms. We can pretty quickly figure out what we think is bullshit and what we think isn't. I'm not sure what the point of a thread on Yokota would be if people aren't watching the Joshi, don't have any real thoughts on it and are just saying "boy Yokota deserves respect." If someone wants to have a real discussion about her? Sure. But I don't get the point in posting about a topic you aren't interesting in discussion just so a great worker can get her due on a message board. Also not sure Yokota is a particularly strong name to pull into this thread. I think she's a great wrestler, but her output really isn't that high in the grand scheme of things. I don't think the gap between Buddy and Funk is all that big. In this case output is a big part of the reason I would rank Funk ahead of him though there are other factors (the greatness of Funk as babyface in AJPW and the greatness of his best heel run for example). There are many cases where all other things being equal or close to equal you can go to output. I'm not arguing against output. I'm arguing against output as the only metric that matters and I'm arguing against it as some sort of objective island in a sea of subjectivity. But again I don't think output alone is enough. Taue has more output than Buddy. I like Taue...a lot. More than most. But I think Buddy was the better wrestler. Kawada very possibly has more great matches. Hansen? I'd have go back and watch the AJPW stuff. It's possible he has more good matches too actually, though I wouldn't want to put money on it. Reading your thoughts above it is REALLY hard to see how you are saying that it isn't all that matters. If all "ingredients" are talent, but volume of good matches still matters more, how much can the ingredients really mean? If Zeus had found a guy to carry him around the horn and he had 100 good matches in a year despite his shitty ingredients, well hell he's probably got more good matches than Brock Lesnar. Definitely more than Volk Han. Yes I realize that's extreme and hypothetical, but we are arguing a philosophical point here that has implications that go beyond silly thought experiments like that. If we agree that we can analyze ingredients beyond mechanics, shouldn't that have a pretty important role in deciding who is better or worse? What if someone doesn't like Flair's stock bumps so much that they don't think the matches are good? Criticisms of ingredients often times lead to fatal criticisms of matches. Not always. But even if they don't what if someone concludes that Flair working hard and having a bunch of good matches with a routine is not as impressive as someone who changes it up more and doesn't have as many Flair v. George South type of performances, but there best stuff is excellent? Put another way what difference is there really between saying "Flair's routine hurts his matches enough, where I reject the argument that he has more output" and saying "Flair's routine was a good way to get good matches with a variety of people, but I don't think it was terribly interesting and there are other guys who do so many other things better that I regard them as better?" I'm sure you'd disagree with both arguments and in many ways so would I, but the end game is the same and I think both are legitimate ways of looking at wrestling. I agree on Pillman and Bret not having the body of work Flair had. Both guys had shorter peak runs and shorter runs of quality than Flair. And of course far shorter careers. I also agree that the combined effect matters, but I don't think the end conclusion to that is that X is better than Y because he has more of Z. I'm more interested in why he has more of Z than I am in the fact that he does have more of Z. I think the Flair v. Jumbo matches are overrated. I like them, but never really have been blown away by either. Not sure what my favorite Flair match in Japan would be offhand, but I honestly like Hansen v. Hennig better than either of those matches despite it being very short. I think Hansen does very well for himself on the AWA Set when you consider how brief his run there really was and how few tv matches against people of note he actually had. You could argue that the Sarge matches are disappointing on some level, but the baby Vader match is better than it should be, the Blackwell match is really good considering Jerry's mobility issues at that point and one of the two Hennig matches is outstanding to the point of being one of the best sprints I've ever seen. You seem to be higher on his WCW stuff than most people are. I thought his Cage Match with Carlos Colon from WWC that I watched the other day was excellent. Not arguing for Hansen over Flair in this thread and not sure I'd buy it right this second, but he has some strong positives outside of Japan. I don't think there is any way in hell Flair comes ahead easily. Is it possible he has more good matches that have made tape? No question. By an easy margin? Maybe I should let Exposer step in here, but he's been rewatching Rey matches for the last few weeks and prior to that was working on a sort of master list of good WWE matches that have made television in the post-consolidation era. The total number is astronomical and Rey has been the most consistent wrestler of that era by a wide margin. Yes he's missed big chunks of time but he's appeared on tv an awful lot, including C shows that "stars" rarely worked on. You tack on WCW to that and his work before then in Japan, AAA, ECW, et. and things get dense real quick. Flair wasn't working competitive matches on tv every week for a big chunk of his peak, we have little 70's footage and he worked a much tougher schedule. It's almost certain that Flair has had more good matches in his career total. But more good matches that have made tape? I honestly think the answer is Rey and if you were to ask me which one is more likely to win this one "easily" it would be him not Flair. Of course if you don't like modern WWE or disagree about what makes a good match mileage may vary dramatically. Not to be a dick, but so the fuck what? If output is the key indicator, what possible reason could there be for ignoring a huge amount of middling or poor output? Does output matter the most sometimes and not at all other times? You are the one who puts output on a pedestal above everything else to the point where talent as a whole (which apparently encompass EVERYTHING other than output) is a marginal way of assessing a wrestler at best. I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that a guy working Flair's schedule was going to break down and break down hard at some point. But I'm not the one talking about output as the primary/sole metric of value in determining the greatness of wrestlers. I'm just trying to understand why some output is more equal than others. Up to now I haven't been arguing it - you have. Unless of course you believe some output is more equal than others. In which case I am even more confused about your general position. Now you are saying that prime matters most and I think that's totally fair. But prime and number of great/good matches don't go hand and hand. You cite Flair's prime as 82-89, but in reading your comments in the yearbook threads I think it's fair to say that you are high on Flair in 90 and see a lot of good matches of his from 91-96. Do you discount those matches when talking about Flair's output? I don't think so. In fact I know you don't because on the podcast you talked about his feud with Luger, which includes some really strong matches in 1990. If output is the metric that matters most in matters in 1982, 1990 and 1999. It doesn't matter sometimes and not others...does it? Now that I've said that I will criticize Flair specifically because it pertains to this other things we are talking about. Flair had his match. He had his shit he liked to do. He kept trying to do it when he physically couldn't anymore and when it became totally senseless to do so. He could have changed the way he worked and eventually did during his American Onita phase, when he had several good matches working the "Dirtiest Player In The Game" gimmick but with a different spin. No Ric Flair wasn't 35 forever (though really that's an odd age to pick for Flair since he was pretty great until he was 40 and pretty good until he was around 45), but he could have changed his ingredients and didn't and that effected his output in a real way. That's not picking on Flair either. There are other guys who have fallen into the same trap, who stayed around too long, who's bodies fell apart, who tried to do things they couldn't anymore, who got lazy, who became jokes, et. But not everyone. Bill Dundee is almost 70. Jerry Lawler is Flair's age. Finlay is 54. Negro Casas is 53. Blue Panther is 52. God knows how old Negro Navarro and Black Terry are (and by god I mean KrisZ). These guys have had very good matches in recent times and with the exception of Dundee (maybe) very good years in recent times. Hell Finlay and Casas were two of the best three best wrestlers in the world in 2012, I thought Panther was the best in the world in 2011, Terry had one of the best runs I've ever seen out of a wrestler in 2010 and Navarro was arguably the best in the world in 2009 (see Mysterio, Rey). Guys like Tenryu, Fujinami, Terry Funk and others had strong performances well into "old age." They also didn't have lows nearly as bad or as long as Flair's. We can argue that peak matters most. We can even argue that peak is all that matters. But we can't argue peak matters most and output matters most. We can't argue that peak is all that matters and output is all that matters. To my mind Flair should not be defined by his dark years, but we can't ignore it and pretend they didn't happen, especially when other wrestlers who have gotten older haven't lost nearly as much. Uh, I think it pretty obviously is part of his case. When are you setting the boundaries on his first career ending and second career beginning? If we say his first career ended upon his first retirement than there is zero argument for Funk as the GOAT based on the footage we have. I love him in AJPW but it's just not enough and what we have other than that is so small it doesn't even begin to build a case. If we argue that his second career began after he left WCW following the 89 run and became a freelancer of sorts I think it's extremely hard to make a case for him. He's got more meat to be sure and you could argue that he has absolute top tier ever babyface and heel runs at that point on tape. But it still feels thin relative to someone like a Kawada or Lawler (leaving Flair out of this for now). Without Funk's freelance run in the 90's/00's I think he's a marginal GOAT candidate. Others may disagree, but I think it's that stuff that really puts him into the discussion. Both are math problems. Counting matches is less involved and the lack of adjustment can lead to all sorts of weird results. I have no interest in building a ratio argument or doing the work for it, but I don't think there is any question that a ratio metric would tell us a lot more than just counting matches. Of course you'd still have to adjust for guys who got favorable programs and again no one is going to do that work. It wouldn't be perfect either. But in most cases a guy who had good matches 50% of the time out is someone I am going to rate higher than a guy who had good matches 20% of the time out, even if the guy sitting at 20% has fifty more good matches in his career (this of course is assuming a certain minimum floor of matches). In any event I'm not arguing for ratio as the metric. I'm just arguing that there are other ways of looking at the good/great match metric than getting out a piece of paper and scrawling down a list of matches you like. The point isn't that ratio is better. It's that it is perfectly legitimate. You aren't going to find it. There is no universal standard here and there can't be. It doesn't mean your choice to favor output is wrong, but I do think output divorced from a discussion of the ingredients is totally uninteresting and tells us absolutely nothing about why a wrestler is or isn't great.

For the record, Buddy, Funk and Dandy are my favorite Will sets and I have a whole lot of them.

I PM'ed him but he hasn't gotten back to me. Until then can someone post the data and/or the claim about matches going on last?

It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. We have argued the point before, but I have never conceded that. We are debating two different things -- talent and career run of output. Debating talent on its own, I would put many wrestlers above Flair, maybe even Bock after watching more footage from him. This is something I have said many times in this and other threads. I care more about career run of output. What other metrics are there that aren't theoretical or overly subjective? Should we debate who had a better foot stomp? I genuinely don't understand. If great matches aren't the best metric, then please explain what is. I genuinely believe the only reason people are arguing that great matches are a flawed metric is because it means Ric Flair is the hands down winner, and that's a boring, status quo answer. Is that incorrect? If not, I will apologize now for making that assumption. There isn't anything to concede. A perfect metric yields perfect results. Most people would conclude that The Ultimate Warrior has more great matches than Brad Armstrong. If the great match metric is perfect Ultimate Warrior is better than Brad Armstrong (unless you dispute the number of great matches each person had, but we can easily pick two other wrestlers to plug in here and the point stands). Do you believe that? I assume you don't, which is why no concession is needed - no one REALLY believes the great match metric is perfect. Some people do believe it is the BEST metric but that's not the same thing and this is a case where the difference between Perfect and Best is big enough that this isn't splitting hairs. Also we are NOT debating two different things and in fact there is absolute NOTHING in what I wrote addressed the issue of talent/skill at all. Feel free to pull out any quote from that post that you think refers to talent/skill directly or by implication if you want because I'm actually confused as to why you even mention it here other than maybe it's the default fall back when confronted with "great matches aren't everything." In fact in the two matches I mention I think it's almost certainly true that Flair exhibited more talent. There were certainly more athletic spots, more offense, more bumps, et. The Bock mach isn't about "talent" - it's about a world champion wrestling like you would expect the best in the world to wrestle against a marginal (at best) challenger. That's not "talent." That's logic. Again in this particular instance it's not about Flair as you can plug in other cases. In fact I'll do that now. There was a Rey v. Eddie match from SD years back. It was one of Eddie's first title defenses (I think) and that night they ran a mini-tourney to see who would get the shot v. Eddie. IIRC Rey beat Shelton and then Big Show by DQ. He was pretty badly battered in match with Show. He and Eddie ended up having a very good tv match. If you were to pull it up now it would probably hold up very well. But my memory of it is that it was worked remarkably even considering the fact that the champion had a free pass all night and the guy he was working was a 5'3, underdog babyface who had had two matches, the last of which was against a giant who beat his ass. That match was really good and featured two very talented guys showcasing their talents very well. Mark Henry v. Daniel Bryan in the Cage probably wasn't as good a match, especially if you were to watch the two back to back. But the psychology in that match was outstanding the logic of the scenario they were working with was communicated perfectly. Those were "great" performances from Henry and Bryan. I'm not really comfortable saying the same of the performances from Eddie and Rey. The broader point here is that context matters in wrestling. If it doesn't then psychology would be irrelevant and wrestling would be a collection of spots with no rhyme or reason (i.e. ROH). It's not enough to say "Wrestler X has Y number of great matches and is therefore better than Wrestler Z who doesn't have as many." We all recognize this which is why we review and talk about matches and want to know WHY matches were good or great or bad or okay. In talking about why we might just point to thinks like quality of stomps which is of course subjective, but then so is any discussion about output in wrestling. As annoying as it may be there is no universally accepted great match. There may be consensus and overwhelming support. But that doesn't make it any less subjective. It's rare for me to chastise you for anything you would write, because even when we disagree it is usually an amicable disagreement, but I think that last paragraph is weak and a very poor way to talk about this sort of stuff. For starters it could easily be flipped on you - i.e. "the only reason you chose number of great matches as metric is because you know it is the only one that will yield Ric Flair as the answer." That sort of questioning of peoples motivations is something you have been vocal about disliking before, so why do it yourself here? Secondly I don't think it's at all certain that Flair does have the most great matches on tape. Is it possible? Yes. But there are those AJPW guys to think about. If you say "well they were primarily working each other" that's true to a degree (though not in the case of Jumbo or Tenryu), but then you are arguing about something other than output and if output is all that matters kiss that argument goodbye. Okay so we will drop it down to "good" matches. Surely Flair had more of those than anyone in history.....except for the fact that Rey Mysterio Jr. exists. Hell maybe even Lawler would apply here too. In any event I don't think it's clear that Flair had more "good" matches than either of them. Of course you could say "yeah but Flair worked great as a face and heel unlike Rey and did it on a bigger stage and in more places than Lawler" - but that has NOTHING to do with number of good matches so.... Finally I would note that even if we accept great matches as the best indicator of great wrestlers, one could easily argue that volume is a skewed way to look at it. For example why is volume more important than ratio? Why does Flair get a mulligan for years of okay, mediocre, bad and at times outright terrible matches? What if a guy has a higher percentage of good and/or great matches in his career than Flair does (and I would argue many do)? I realize wrestling isn't a sport, but there is a reason that sports statistical analysis has trended in the direction of sabermetrics and things of that ilk over the years. Jack Morris won more games during the 80's than anyone else and the object of baseball is to win - but he wasn't the best pitcher in the 80's. Since I don't want to give the appearance of picking on Flair (The guy would be in my top ten, very possibly top five) I'll point out that the opposite is true as well - if a guy packs of all of his best work into a two year period and retires/drops dead with a high ratio, but low volume can you really compare him to a guy that had a twenty plus year career solely on a ratio metric? La Fiera is awesome every time he turns up, but we don't have a lot of footage with him. Volk Han had less than a hundred career matches (less than 75 probably), but was consistently awesome - still do you rate him over someone like Ricky Morton based on a ratio argument? My answer is no, that there is a balance and that fundamentally there is no "metric" that is even close to perfect.

It's clearly NOT a perfect metric. Might it be the best metric? Yes. But I think it goes without saying that it's not a perfect metric for reasons we have covered several times in the past. One aside that I would note is that sometimes having a match that's "better" is not actually good wrestling in the sense that I understand the term. A good example would be Ric Flair v. George South. Watching as a kid in 1988 I was freaking out thinking "holy shit this guy who always loses is getting near falls on the world champion!" I can remember running to my dad and saying that. His response? "I guess the World Champion isn't very good." Compare that to someone like Bock working Milliman (not the one on youtube unfortunately). Milliman gets a moment or two or maybe even three. But at no point do you think HOLY SHIT THE MILKMAN IS GONNA WIN! Bock shows his ass enough to make the other guy look credible, but not so much that the other guy looks like his equal, let alone his superior. Flair v. South is probably better than Bock v. Milliman. But I think Bock's performance was better in conjunction with the role he's supposed to be playing. And ultimately that matters a lot to me as a fan. None of this is to say I think Bock is better than Flair or that Flair wrestled all jobbers that way. Just a general observation about "great matches" or even "good matches" as measuring tools and why they are clearly not "perfect."

I am arguing that the "depth" of WWF for much of the 80's was meaningless depth. WCW in 1999 was a very deep roster on paper. Not sure that means much.

Abdullah The Butcher v. Carlos Colon - 1981 This is one of those matches that is worth watching just for the atmosphere. Match is from Trinidad and the crowd keeps swarming closer and closer to the ring as this goes on. Carlos looks totally different here. Abby does not. This is about what you would expect, but the brawling around ringside was somewhat limited by the crowd that was right up on top of the ring. I really did love Colon targeting Abby's ear early on, but Abby's selling is so poor that it really didn't work as well as it should. Both guys end up a blood mess and this had some Abby schtick that I did enjoy but this was mainly notable for crazy shit like a fan stealing a foreign object out of Abby's hands and the ref calling the match to avert a riot only for Abby to keep going on post-match and making things worse.

Pulling these over from other threads so all my thoughts are in one place Carlos Colon v. Greg Valentine Cage Match from 1991 First five minutes or so is missing which is too bad because this is really good. Escape the cage rules but they make the most out of things and I thought the way both guys cut off the other worked well. Both guys bleed, Valentine takes some great bumps, and the match has a good flow to it. I also thought the finish was really clever. This was Valentine past his prime, but it's hard to imagine anyone having a better match with Colon in 91 (not so sure of that now - Colon is way better than I remembered). Tajiri v. El Lobo Andy Anderson - 12/15/01 I don't have a date on this, but it may have been from 2001. Anyhow someone find me a date because this was a great match and an insanely great performance from Tajiri. I don't want to sell El Lobo short. He was really awesome too selling the fuck out of his leg, eating all of Tajiri's stuff and coming back with some truly impressive and really athletic spots. But my god was Tajiri off the charts here. He is just vicious with his shots throughout the entire match. He creams Anderson with shots to his leg and hits some really nice pointed elbows for good measure. When it comes time for a hope spot he is flailing wildly for the sick delayed vertical, then bails to the floor and shoots back in to take over control before Anderson can run a string of offensive together. Later Anderson hits a huge gutbuster but uses his hurt knee. Tajiri sells the impact, runs over and dropkicks the knee to keep him on the defensive and then goes back to selling his ribs. Tajiri's mocking claps, using the ref as a shield, shoving at the ref, et is just all wonderful. Stretch run of this is really great too as Anderson gets a great near fall off of an Alabama Slam/80% across the ring diving headbutt. Tajiri has this great visual freak out as he is screaming in slightly comedic terror as Anderson hits a sit down Razor's Edge for another huge spot. Tajiri's seconds try to get involved and hold Lobo in place, but he ducks and Tajiri sprays the mist into his comrades eyes. You think he is going to turn around into a big spot for the face victory, but instead Tajiri cleans his clock with a blind side kick and follows up with the tarantula. He sprawls himself out on the top rope, leaning head first out towards the crowd literally laughing in their faces, kicking his feet like a little kid in the bath tub, and signalling that he's about to punt El Lobo's head into to the tenth row. But of course he whiffs on the head kick and Lobo hits a kick double underhook/flapjack thinking that Tajiri took really well for the fall. This is one of the best Tajiri matches I've ever seen and everyone should go watch it right this second.

Carlos Colon v. The Great Kokina - Cage Match 1991 This started really slow, but got better as the match went along. The man who would be Yokozuna was insanely green here, but it was fun to watch him work cowardly heel spots. I thought the match was much better when Colon was on offense as Kokina's bumps were really big and he generally looked more comfortable working underneath than on top. Slam came off as a big moment and had the weird gym they were in shaking. Finish was a bit iffy, but this won me over.

Was there powder and a fan involved? Not that I'm aware of. Although, speaking of fans Buddy did interact frequently with "Grandma" in the front row during his heyday. She even once attempted assault. Once?

I honestly think he is a guy who was trapped in a bad period. If he had the "Big Shot" gimmick (which was AWESOME) a few years earlier or a few years later I think he would at least have been given more chances to have memorable matches. Not sure he was ever a guy who was going to get a huge push, but the guy was very solid as a worker. There was a period in 05/06 where pretty much any tv match he was in was going to be good. He had all the staples you want a WWE guy to have, but also came across as stiff and mean in the ring which was an element that wasn't always there with other guys who may have been more talented in some ways.