Dylan Waco

The one on the Bret DVD was very good. That's the Bees match I'm talking about. Very good match and the best performance I can remember seeing from the HF. They may have had better matches, but none where they looked that good from bell-to-bell. Top five in no particular order at the moment would be Arn/Tully, Lane/Eaton, Eaton/Condrey, Fabs and RnR's. Rose/Somers might be my numbers six and would be higher if they had more than a year. Rockers and High Flyers would also make my top ten.

There are Harts v. Islanders matches where Islanders carried them to really good bouts. Best HF performance I recall is v. Killer Bees.

When did the State Patrol debut? This s a mild troll of tom, but I'm curious how he ranks them in relation to a team like Demolition or The Hart Foundation

When did Sting/Luger team in the 80's? For short lived teams Bock/Saito were awfully good, to the point where they are a team that I suspect would have been all time great level if they had more work under their belts. Doing a top ten is tough because of the whole peak v. longevity thing.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the Bulldogs were more exciting. Not sure that makes them the better team though

Not sure what this has to do with who the better team was. In fact most of the major riots in wrestling history were North of the Mason-Dixon. Even among lesser known events, something like the finish of Blackwell/Adnan v. Mad Dog/Baron with Verne getting destroyed led to a crazy environment that was worse than anything I have seen on a Crockett show. Setting aside what is bolded I want to know what you prefer about the WWF style.

Outside of match with Rogeaus, how much Garvin brother footage is there? Not very much, which is too bad because they are great in those matches. Really I want to see more Sweet Daddy Siki/Pretty Boy Chuck Sims matches as I suspect they are better than most WWF tag teams as well, but we only have one match to go on.

I'm kind of miffed at how anyone could think Bret Hart was a better tag wrestler than Ricky Morton. To be perfectly honest I think Morton is a better worker than Hart period, but that's not an argument that has to be hashed out in this thread. But Hart as better tag worker? I'd like to see the case. What Hart Foundation match is carried by Bret's selling, hope spots, timing, bumping, facial expressions or comebacks? I don't think Gibson is as worthless as some do, but I think he was a much less important part of his team than Neidhart. Yeah Neidhart ground matches to a halt with chinlocks at times, but he as the guy with the personality that allowed the act to get over as much as it did and his big spots had impact and were visually impressive. He presented a good "other" for Bret to work with. Gibson was solid in what he was asked to do, was underrated when called to work heel, and could work FIP himself when asked, but there is no question Morton could have had almost anyone else in his corner and the team still would have been good if not great. With Bret I'm not sure if people even remember the Hart Foundation if the other guy is Brian Blair or Warlord or Danny Davis or whatever random guy you want to plug in. Expanding on the Hart Foundation, I think they had a good look and a good tag dynamic on paper. Everyone talks about how Jimmy Hart in the WWF was kind of irrelevant and he was in comparison to Memphis, but I think he played a huge role in that team getting over as much as they did and of the guys in the team he was clearly the one best at building heat, with Neidhart second and Bret last. But in terms of producing great matches? Well where are they? I'm not saying they don't have ANY, but they definitely don't have MANY and when I was going through WWF 80's wrestling over the Summer with Will, Phil and my brother (Exposer) I think it was clear that they didn't even stand out when looking solely at the WWF. They were better than the Bees and maybe The Bulldogs. Strike Force, Islanders, Dream Team, Moondogs all looked considerably better. Actually The Moondogs might be a top ten team, though you have to pick the pairing and I'm not motivated to go back and look at the variety of guys who worked under that gimmick and who worked what matches at the moment. Islanders probably are a top ten team and pretty much outclassed the HF both as face and heels. The wild card is the Rougeau's. I've shit on them in the past at DVDVR and sort of feel bad about it now because watching the Montreal footage their stock as a unit really goes up. In particular Ray is a very good worker and I think they have enough WWF meat where if you are looking big picture they are better than the Hart's too as their face work in Montreal is really outstanding. Actually how/if we should include Canadian teams in this is another interesting discussion. I am not sure Bobby Bass/Goldie Rodgers made tape more than once, but when they did they put in an outstanding performance v. The Bulldogs. Makhan Singh/Jerry Morrow were a very good unit - good at building heat, pretty good offense, good heel tactics, sound psychology, neat dichotomy in terms of what they brought to a match - I'm not even close to done with watching Stampede, but on the surface level I could see them being better than most WWF tag teams from the era. Bruce Hart/Brian Pillman version of Badd Company were fun promos, had a good look and had some good matches. Yes Pillman was green as grass and Bruce was an asshole, but for reckless, spotty guys from Calgary territory, you could argue they are superior to The Bulldogs. Pierre Lefevbre was a very good tag worker with both Sailor White and Frenchy Martin. Much better than Bret as a tag worker in all honesty. And those teams were legitimately good though there is not a ton of footage. Still Martin/Lefevbre - in terms of rough mechanics and team dynamic - are as good or better than a lot of the vaunted WWF tag teams.

Dave and I will do guestless shows again I'm sure. I'm not averse to taking requests though I make no promises.

There really isn't anything to it. The information is out there and easy to get. The trick with 80's WWF tag teams is analyzing it in the context of a promotion where everything was over. Maan, I was going to WWF house shows in both the Cap/Us Arena in Landover as well as the Baltimore Arena in the 80s, and the idea that the WWF was a promotion where everything is over doesn't feel the least bit accurate. Vince may claim that all of his wrestler's where "WWF superstars" but that's not the way the shows were booked. I remember going to a show in Baltimore (about a month before the combined AWA/NWA fed tried to break into the market) where yes I was really enthusiastic about the work in the Scott Mcgee v Tiger Chung Lee match, but we may have been the only people enthusiastic about that match. For everyone else, Hogan was over and Jyd was over---the rest of the card was a good time to buy Hogan merch. I think one of the points from Krisz's "Vince v the World" thread was the WWF wasn't a fed where everything was over, people came to see Hogan. Everything is over is probably a stretch. Saying people came solely to see Hogan is definitely a stretch. Of course Hogan was the guy that drove the brand, the rising tide that lifted all boats, et. But in the early days especially you can point to other feuds that were positioned to draw and did draw. Andre and friends v. Patera/Studd was a solid drawing card. So was Valentine v. Tito and they were often put on the same shows. In the case of Detroit they were red hot, sold out for the first time in years there and effectively opened up that market. Hogan wasn't even on the show. The big difference is that I don't think the Hart Foundation were positioned as drawing cards or drawing attractions as often as the Midnights or Rock N Roll's or The High Flyers. I don't know that any analysis of results could possibly change my mind on that.

There really isn't anything to it. The information is out there and easy to get. The trick with 80's WWF tag teams is analyzing it in the context of a promotion where everything was over.

That was the Blacktop Bully not Bunkhouse Buck

Raven?

I actually thought about this on and off today (which says something about me) and I actually don't know if there is any wrestler I get less excited about seeing than Rotundo. It's not even that he's terrible because he isn't. But the guy is boring as fuck and completely uninteresting on every level. He always has the look of a guy who is annoyed that he has to punch in for work and while I sympathize that is not a good default facial expression for a pro wrestler. I can think of a handful of matches involving him that I like a lot, but I can't really think of a particularly outstanding performance of Rotundo's. Also his kid had a shitty match with Drew Macintyre on the WWE show I saw last year, which means I'm taking off extra points for trickling his uselessness down to the next generation.

I like Slater, but Bob Orton is the kind of guy I could see watching fifty matches of for some short lived project in this forum.

I don't know if I would go as far as Phil, but I think he's an incredibly boring guy more often than not and I think the reason he isn't talked about on forums like this is because there isn't a lot of meat to the rep he had for being a good worker. On the other hand I tend to think he's underrated as a star. Muraco was a drawing card a lot of different places. In some ways he's comparable to Patera, in that his best years he was in demand a variety of places and headlined from a very young age, but he wasn't as good in the ring as Patera and he wasn't as important on the biggest stages of wrestling as Patera. Still Muraco is a guy I'd like to see someone explore in depth as a drawing card.

Fabs v. Lawler/Dundee needs to go on.

I don't think that's terribly impressive. No one calls The Islanders an all time great team and they aren't terribly well remembered - they have at least as many matches that are high quality as Dibiase. If you think that's unfair compare Dibiase to other similarly pushed guys from the same rough era - Piper, Savage, Hogan, Andre - which one of the guys out of that group feels like that fell short of their potential as a worker? I'm not saying it to slag Ted, nor do I think it's entirely his fault. But he's a guy who lacks the depth or memorable performances you expect from an "all timer." I'm not a guy who thinks "great matches" is the be all and end all. I don't even agree with Loss that is the rule and the deviations are rare exceptions. Having said that it tells me something when guys who are generally thought of as weaker workers, are able to do more in the same rough setting as guys who are generally thought of as better workers. Does Ted have better execution and bumping technique than Piper? Probably so, but mechanics in a vacuum don't mean much to me. Did he make his opponents look better? I don't really get the impression that Dibiase was more or less good as Piper at that, but even granting that you can cherry pick all day and night. Alex Porteau was better on the mat, executed holds better, ran the ropes better, had better moveset than Mick Foley. Is Alex Porteau a better wrestler than Mick Foley? Sure Foley had more great matches, but you can create a mechanical framework where Porteau is clearly better. It's worthless, but you can do it. Expanding on this was Ted as good at connecting with crowds through his work as Piper? I like Ted and don't think he was terrible in that regard, but I also don't think he was in the same universe as Piper, to the point where it would be hard to take a contrary argument seriously. And since I know that you think transmission of character through work is a big part of the "total package" deal that is wrestling, it seems like this would be a massive, massive plus for Piper, particularly as it relates to the way you usually describe the WWF of this era. But we can go farther than that and ask other things. The Warrior talking point is mine, so you are trying it on the wrong guy Invoking Meltzer is meaningless to me. Dave is a guy who always had his favorites, lots of whom were related to sources and reps. When he latches onto something he's not going to give it up, which is why every NJPW show of the last year has had a MOTY or GOAT level match or Greatest Show In Wrestling History tag affixed to it. Dave is someone I take seriously as a reporter and historian, but I don't take him seriously at all on work and I don't think citing Dave's opinion is proof of "little things" analysis. Far from it actually. Speaking of which there are very few people online who push more for the "little things" as valuable metrics of looking at wrestlers than me. The problem is that Ted really doesn't stand out in that regard during his WWF run. Was he an all timer at engaging the crowd? I really don't think so and I think that's why we can't point to any consensus "holy shit this is awesome" level matches. Was he an all timer at projecting character and meaning into his matches? I don't see it. Was he an all timer at having fun, exciting or otherwise interesting squash matches? I don't know of anyone who has ever made this argument about Ted, so I assume no one believes it. This will seem like a troll, but I'm serous when I ask this - was Dibiase even as good at the above things as The Nasty Boys? I honestly don't think so and more to the point I don't think he was CLOSE. Saying "well he had a pretty powerslam, a cool belt and I dug the trademark cackle" would be one mode of argument I guess, but I don't think that's really a "little things" assessment. What are? Saying Piper is better than him in the WWF isn't writing him off - Piper was good in the WWF, particularly at the things that you would want a WWF wrestler to be good at based on the "character, gimmick, angle" metric you are pushing. Piper was better at giving those thing meaning in his matches than Dibiase. Piper was a better WWF worker than Dibiase. I use to love WCW Worldwide as in middle school/high school. Fun show with interesting match ups. Loved the Pro too. Lots of matches where guys worked hard, didn't botch things, didn't miss cues, executed things well, got all the basics and fundamentals of wrestling spot on. A guy like Mark Starr seemed really solid to me in that respect when I was growing up. I have no clue how he would age now as I haven't gone back and watched a ton of Men At Work matches. But my impression of him was that he was a guy who did what he was supposed to do and was convincing as a hard hat, construction worker, and ambiguous partner of Chris Kanyon. I don't recall Starr having any great matches and don't think he was a great worker. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the in ring work of Mark Starr and the in ring work of Ted Dibiase in the WWF was great. Martel's gimmick was more mid-cardy than Ted's was. I get the point you are advancing, but what I don't believe is that the "good hand" label meant that Ted was doomed to have so few matches that stand out.

I think that's how you want to believe they utilized him because it is a good way to excuse his weak output. I mean it is a decent narrative to run with if you are going in with the idea that Dibiase has to be an all time great worker. But it ultimately still reads as an excuse. Compare Dibiase to Piper. You don't ever hear anyone talk about Roddy as an all timer. Yet when I recently watched a lot of 80's/90's Piper in the WWF my impression of him was much more favorable than it was of Ted. We can say "well Piper had advantages because of the style he was working" which is something I guess you could argue to an extent, but then that shoots holes in the whole "Ted as technician" talking point, and I'm not really sure that it speaks well for Dibiase that Piper at WORST had matches as good with Savage and Bret as he did and had matches working opposite guys like Orndorff and Bruno that work on a level beyond what Dibiase was able to pull off with most anyone in the WWF. I'm not saying Dibiase wasn't a great talent or a great worker in this prime. Not saying the MDM character wasn't great/memorable. Not saying he did nothing of value in the ring in the WWF (I like aforementioned Dustin match for example). But the output of the guy was not good at all relative to his talent and the excuses offered up for him in this thread don't work with me when you've got equal or lesser talents working in the same rough era who were able to do more.

I like all those matches fine. Don't think any makes my top 300 WWE matches in history. Maybe not top 500. That's not me being hyperbolic either and that's one reason why I look at Dibiase's output and find it totally unimpressive.

Also which of those matches is pushing four stars????

You don't have to go to Crockett/WCW to see the difference. I like Ted fine, but even if we grant that those were all "solid" matches or whatever the hell *** means, there are guys who's rep are not as strong as Dibiase who have as many or more in the WWF.

Feel free to start it. I thought there was an old thread on the topic here, though I couldn't find it when I checked yesterday.

This is probably best served for another thread, but do people really see Michaels as a great promo?

I can't think of a single good reason to drop drawing power in a discussion like that. Seriously curious as to why that would be preferred method.