Dylan Waco

Fun Mike Mooneyham article on The Mulkeys who are being inducted into the SC Wrestling HoF at the Indy show I'm going to tonight http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2012...f-fame-ceremony

I think Estrada is sort of the Lucha version of Michaels, at least based on what I've seen. Though I think Estrada's highs are higher than Shawn's. I think Park v. Mesies I is better than any Shawn match I've ever seen and I like a ton of his post-WCW stuff. When he's off he is BAD, but there is hardly any wrestler alive I'd rather watch less when he's off than Shawn. I already mentioned that I would personally rate Jamie and Budro over Shawn, though with some mild reservations on both. I think Virus smokes Shawn and can't believe I forgot him

I think that depends on the person. To me I would say yes it does matter but not THAT much. And if it was a major factor Shawn drops out of the top 300 for me, because I care about him far less than I do someone like Chris Colt or Bobby Bass

Expanding to international guys: Guys I would definitely rate ahead of Shawn Jim Breaks Johnny Saint Marty Jones Akira Hokuto Megumi Kudo Aja Kong Bull Nakano Jaguar Yokota Chigusa Nagayo Jushin Liger Sano Misawa Kawada Akiyama Taue Kobashi Kikuchi Doug Furnas Dan Kroffat El Samurai Ohtani Great Sasuke Dick Togo Taka Minchinoku Alexander Otsuka Daisuke Ikeda Yuki Ishikawa Saito Giant Baba Jumbo Tenryu Choshu Yatsu Kimura Yamazaki Fujinami Fujiwara Volk Han Tamura Maeda Hashimoto Gran Hamada Psicosis Juventud Guerrera La Parka El Dandy MS-1 Sangre Chicana El Satanico El Hijo Del Santo Blue Panther Negro Casas Mascarita Sagrada Black Terry Negro Navarro Emilo Charles Jr. Fuerza Guerrera Pirata Morgan Guys I would with some mild reservations Hoshino Kobayashi Dynamite Kansai Satomura Kanemoto Takayama Ricky Fuyuki Masa Fuchi Jerry Estrada La Fiera Javier Cruz Atlantis Solar I Guys I'm unsure of Hayabusa Kanemura Yugi Nagata Oya Masato Tanaka Masa Chono Gedo Akira Nogami Ultimo Dragon Sayama Tamon Honda Gran Cochise Onita Super Astro Villano III (about twenty Joshi gals I haven't watched in forever could be added in here as well) Again probably a bunch I"m missing

It's funny because I discussed Pillman v. Shawn on the phone with my brother (Exposer) earlier as a guy I was surprised people hadn't honed in on as a contentious pick. From where I stand Pillman is pretty easily better than Shawn. I wouldn't argue too hard if someone wanted to say that Shawn's absolute best matches are better than Pillman's. But I don't think Shawn was ever as good in any role he was in as Pillman was as the underdog/high flying babyface from 89-92. I honestly think that is one of the great babyface runs in history and it is primarily forgotten in my view because of the fact that it wasn't followed up on with a real main event run despite the fact that there was a real opportunity for it. In the particulars I think Pillman showed a ton of range during that period as he was really good as a tag wrestler with a variety of partners, could carry garbage wrestlers like Scotty Flamingo, was really good at your shorter burst of energy type of tv matches, always stepped up when in there with main eventers (see the Luger, Windham, Rude or Flair matches), and I'm a guy who thinks the Liger feature match holds up better than a lot of Shawn's best matches. It's a run that as a nice blend of everything and feels like a complete spectrum of what you would want from that sort of babyface. The subsequent heel run I'm not as high on, but compared to Shawn's initial heel run? I'll take Pillman every time. Stuff like the Starcade tag with Windham and the awesome SN match v. Douglas are really great matches even if I think the Blondes were overrated. And I'd still take the Blondes over boring heel Shawn (I honestly thought Sherri was the best part of his act at that point). After that? Well there isn't much, though you do have random things like the Mero match which is a real flash of greatness from Pillman. Shawn was clearly better from 94-97, but I don't think it makes up the ground Pillman built up in the previous five years. Not even close really. Of course that ignores Shawn's Rockers run, but it also ignores the comeback stuff I don't like

I don't necessarily disagree with that (well I might disagree on where the matches would place overall) which is why I think Shawn is the exact opposite of how some of portrayed him in this thread. I think Shawn is better in snapshots than as a big picture. By that I mean you can take pieces of matches or even matches in any given year and say "this guy is great." But when you pull back you see a lot of empty periods, boring periods, weak periods and bad wrestling.

Been thinking about this with the AWA Set coming out, but can anyone think of a guy who had one single stand out year that was so dramatically ahead of the pack that it is the essence of a one year peak. I know Ken Patera in 80 was a case of a guy who really had everything hitting at once, but he was a major star before and after. The guy I always think of is Doug Somers (hence the AWA Set connection). Prelim guy before and after for the most part, but for one year (in an admittedly dying company) he was a star and putting on awesome matches every time out.

I don't know that there is a lot of arguing for or against and that's fine. I do think it's interesting that so many people are high enough on Shawn where they see him as top fifty and above. That is semi-surprising to me only because with everything I have seen over the last several years it would be hard for me to even fathom a case for him that high. But a lot of people like his post-comeback stuff for reasons I'll never really understand.

Shawn's matches are built around bumping and the big moment, not selling, at least not in quite some time. By the time Regal and Finlay were in the same company with him I can honestly say that I don't know of any two wrestlers I would find to be less complimentary to Shawn's style of match than those two

So I picked this up the other day and breezed through it. I figured I would give it it's own thread even though there is going to be some spillover HoF talk. I'm not going to give a standard review here, but I will say is that I think it is a book everyone should read. I absolutely think you can make serious criticisms of the book, but I also think it is a bit different from other wrestling books in it's scope and the way it attacks it's subject. At worst it will be a unique read folks don't quite love. At best I could see it being a "sleeper" favorite book for many readers. I'll list the books Pros and Cons here, starting with the Cons: Cons 1. The book is just too short. I understand this may not have been the author's fault but 180 pages is really too brief for a book of this sort, particularly when you are looking at a range of social issues that go far beyond wrestling. 2. This is related to the first issue, but the amount of time spent on the Dog himself is far too short. Klein does a great job setting up the backdrop and importance of JYD, but for such a brief book there is at least as much time spent on other figures like Ernie Ladd, the Birds and Bill Watts. This would have been excellent in a more lengthy book - in a book this length it left you wanting more on JYD himself. 3. I felt too much emphasis was put on JYD's weaknesses and not enough on his strengths. Klein clearly things Dog was a major player and late in the book openly lobbies for him in the HoF. He correctly notes that JYD proved to be without a replacement in NOLA and that Watts spent much of the rest of his career in the business searching in vain for another Dog. Unfortunately he seems to go out of his way to credit others with Dog's accomplishments and only makes passing reference toward the end of the book to the innate charisma that made Dog what he was. 4. A few minor inaccuracies and/or questionable statements which I think probably has to do with an over reliance on certain sources. The most personally annoying to me was when he was making a case of sorts for JYD as a WON HoF at the very end of the book and claimed JYD had been rejected by voters and fallen off the ballot - in reality JYD has never been on the ballot, most likely because Dave Meltzer (who is clearly one of Klein's main sources for the book) was never a fan. Pros 1. I like that he went out and interviewed people that knew Dog in his youth and random fans in the Mid-South area including casuals. Gave the book a nice flavor that was somewhat distinct from the average wrestling book. 2. Though the length of the book made the depth of the writing on Watts, Birds, Ladd, et come across as meaty, in reality it did wonders at illustrating the significance of JYD and his importance to the wrestling business. In particular I was impressed by how Klein followed the history of race and the massive importance of JYD's place as the first true black anchor (especially in the South) in the business without shirking guys like Ladd, Sailor Art Thomas, Bobo, et. 3. I thought for the most part he did a good job pointing out how immensely valuable JYD was to New Orleans itself. He did this with a combination of facts, stories, details, et. which gives one a more complete picture that what you often get from fans trying to make the case for their favorite regional stars. 4. I really enjoyed the chapter on Klein's personal history as a fan, connection to the Dog and the value JYD had to a close friend of his as a kid. I could see this being a distraction or seeming out of place to some readers. To me it added a sort of honesty to the book, that I think is missing from even the best wrestling books. 5. I think the book makes an interesting case for JYD in the Observer HoF despite the fact that Klein seems to go out of his way to diminish the Dog's role in his own success. At the very end of the book he even directly lobbies for it. The crux is that Dog probably drew more (in a previously dead market as Klein notes) in one town over a five year period than just about any one in wrestling history. If you follow the details in the book Dog comes across as the biggest American draw in the immediate pre-Hogan era and though it is only covered briefly I think Klein was right to note that JYD was a bigger part of the expansion than he is sometimes given credit for. Over all my thoughts may come across more negative than I intend. The book is very worthwhile and is something that could spark discussion on a variety of topics from race and wrestling, to 80s/territorial history, to the importance of individual stars, et. I would recommend it highly, despite the low page count to price point ratio

Thinking about this with the benefit of just a few hours reflection and I can already think of a lot of names I left out of the initial list that would place in one of the three categories. Guys like Eric Embry, The Undertaker, Necro Butcher, Dennis Condrey, et. I mean I can absolutely see how people would argue against a lot of the names on my initial list, those names and others. But the more I consider this the more I come up with guys that I feel are at least in the discussion with Shawn. That's not really a knock on him, so much as it is an illustration of how much wrestling I have been able to watch over the course of the last fifteen years

I would never discourage people from seeking out context and things of that nature, but if anything I think the 80's sets encourage that more than the pre-80's sets/footage explosion era where people had opinions that they were set on and wouldn't deviate from. After watching NJPW Set I wasn't all "boy that Hoshino was great, glad we closed the book on him!" Instead I wanted to see more Hoshino. I suspect others feel the same way

I have Will's El Dandy set and I've seen other random stuff both on youtube and running through random WCW syndication stuff. El Dandy would make my top twenty of all time. I have a soft spot for Abby because he's one of the only wrestlers who legit scared me as a kid. He's a guy who's gimmick is impossible to separate from what he does in the ring. I don't think I would rate him above Shawn to be honest, but I could see how some would On Magnum I think his best matches compare very well to Shawn's and he doesn't have the divisive post-prime

I actually think the EXACT opposite is true in terms of Patterson mapping out matches. Pat wasn't mapping out Rey's ten minute SD matches or Chris Masters Superstars matches. Him and agents like him were mapping out things like Shawn v. Diesel.

If this is the case the peak performance/prime argument is dogshit and has to be immediately discarded as an idiotic way to evaluate wrestlers. Peak/prime refers to a time period in every wrestler's career, not the quality of the best matches. Every wrestler has a span of 4-6 years (give or take) where they're in their prime. You can still cherry pick matches from that time-span which is what the 80s sets do. Meaning there's no real prime/peak comparison between guys. This is not at all what I was saying. If someone has seen all of the great-to-good-to-average-to-bad Bryan performances as well as all of the great/good/average/bad Bret Hart performances, I think it's fair for them to make a comparison between the two. We are assuming that all of the footage available on tape of either guy is an accurate representation/proper sample of their work. The raw number of matches don't matter in this case. The 80's sets are not an accurate representation/sample of any wrestler's work because only the best work is represented. I would guess the number of people who have seen all the good/great/bad performances available of more than a handful of individual wrestlers is incredible small.

Shawn's best year is 86.

If this is the case the peak performance/prime argument is dogshit and has to be immediately discarded as an idiotic way to evaluate wrestlers. Now there is the old peak v. longevity debate and I have always found myself falling somewhere in the middle. And I get that ideally you want to have the biggest picture possible. But I think if you are going to say we can't fairly evaluate wrestlers unless we get to a certain percentage of their career we are heading down a slippery slope. I mean there is a far higher percentage of Daniel Bryan's career available on tape than Bret Hart's, do we have to see Bret as inferior to Bryan because of that? Is it unfair to compare the two as a result?

Why? If you are someone who believes in evaluating peak v. peak the 80's Sets are as good a comparative tool as I can imagine. Peak vs. peak to me doesn't mean top matches vs top matches. It means comparing one guy's prime to another guy's prime. You can't get a good grasp of a worker by watching a number of cherry picked matches for a Best of a promotion set. Well, I think the former reaction is far more common. It's not really just about Shawn but any WWF/WCW wrestlers where all the footage has been examined. You watch the top 15 Chris Adams matches on the Texas set or the top 15 Murdoch matches in Mid-South, they might come off as better workers than say someone like Davey Boy Smith. On the other hand, if all people had on DBS were a select few matches against Bret, Owen, Shawn, and Vader, I'd imagine he would be looked at more favorably than he is now. I seriously doubt more than a minority of people here or on the DVDVR boards have gone through all the WCCW TV/Ft. Worth/Legends shows or all of the Mid-South House Shows/TV/UWF TV/PPW shows. This is nothing I can prove definitively but I would guess people have formed opinions on these workers simply based on the limited footage on the 80's sets. I have gone through a ton of WCW, WWF, AWA, Portland, ECW and SMW within the last six years or so. This is to say nothing of my other pursuits, which includes watching 80's Sets. If I were evaluating prime v. prime Shawn would plummet even further in my eyes if I am being honest with myself, especially if I were going by your formula of weighting singles matches/performances more. Now I get that there are some guys that you can't get a complete picture on from the 80's sets. For example I have heard that Sakaguchi benefited dramatically from selection on the NJPW Set. Conversely I think Col. Debeers is probably better than the picture that we will get from an AWA set where he will show up seven times. But the I don't see how the 80's sets are anything less than a good tool for looking at wrestlers and yes even comparing them. Of course there is always the issue of people being drawn to "newness" and favoring it over the older stuff. But I think that is offset by those who reflexively believe that something that has entered the pantheon of "classic" must stay in that arena and can not be thought about in any other light.

Guys I would absolutely rate above Shawn without a serious doubt entering my mind in no particular order. I'll stick to U.S. based promotions, but exclude luchadores like LA Park or El Dandy (or even Psicosis or Juvi). I did include Tajiri just because. Buddy Rose Rick Martel Ric Flair Nick Bockwinkel Bret Hart Harley Race Jerry Lawler Bill Dundee Randy Savage Greg Valentine Tito Santana Dick Murdoch Barry Windham Curt Hennig Mick Foley Steve Austin Rey Mysterio Eddy Guerrero Chris Benoit Finlay William Regal Terry Funk Stan Hansen Sgt. Slaughter Brian Pillman Ricky Morton Bobby Eaton Ricky Steamboat Vader 2 Cold Scorpio Jerry Blackwell Billy Robinson Terry Gordy Steve Williams Tommy Rich Tracy Smothers Ted Dibiase Tommy Rogers Owen Hart Dustin Rhodes Daniel Bryan John Cena Ed Wiskowski Ron Garvin Tully Blanchard Wahoo McDaniel Butch Reed Larry Zbyszko Bob Backlund Christian Guys I would rate ahead of Shawn if pressed but with mild reservations Rick Rude Matt Hardy Chris Adams Tajiri Mikey Whipwreck Adrian Adonis Michael Hayes CM Punk Manny Fernandez Buzz Sawyer Jamie Dundee Andre The Giant Dutch Mantell Buddy Landell Kerry Von Erich Sean Waltman Bob Orton Chavo Guerrero Jake Roberts Guys I could see an argument for but I'm not sure about Sting Sabu Abdullah The Butcher Matt Borne Dusty Rhodes Spike Dudley Jim Brunzell Little Guido Lex Luger Jimmy Garvin Ken Patera Eddie Gilbert Masked Superstar Hulk Hogan Big Show Paul Orndorff Roddy Piper Ivan Kollof Magnum T.A. Dick Slater This is purely off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm forgetting some people. If I start bringing in Luchadores and Japanese workers Shawn sinks out of contention for a top 100 really quickly.

Which match? I liked the first of the two a lot, though not as much as it's biggest fans who were touting it as one of the great matches in wrestling history. The second match I enjoyed, but thought Taker's selling is what made the match interesting.

Why? If you are someone who believes in evaluating peak v. peak the 80's Sets are as good a comparative tool as I can imagine. If you are someone who weighs all things - which admittedly I am - I can see the flaws as you have to start considering things like selection bias, consistency, et. But the point isn't "I saw a few good matches from wrestler x on an 80's set so now I rate him above Shawn." It's more "I saw a ton Mr. Saito from WWF, AWA, AJPW and NJPW in the last couple of years and I have watched a lot of older WWF in the last several years and I would rate him above Shawn." I'll post a broader list later.

I think that is probably a stretch. I am certain I would have him behind Scorp and Rey. Child killer feels lateral to me. I am pretty fucking high on Mikey and could see a case for him over Shawn that year. No way on Juvy and I think Regal is a guy who lacks the matches offhand. With Dean I'd say it's fairly lateral, maybe a slight edge to Shawn without seeing the B-Shows. What Eddy and Psicois am I forgetting?

Rude in 92 was a guy who was good in everything he did whether it was a tag match, multi-man, Iron man with Steamer, short tv match with Pillman (which I think is a GREAT tv match and if I were ever to do a comp of my favorite matches ever would make the cut) and was a lot less reliant on "other stuff" than Shawn. I mean I like Good Friends, Better Enemies FAR more than most people who think selling is the key to a good match. But that is a match where Shawn was working right in his comfort zone

We discussed this on the 96 yearbook podcast but Shawn was really booked and presented terribly in 96. You don't have to be a fan of his, much less an apologist for him to recognize that he was cast in a light where backlash in certain areas was inevitable. Having said that I do think that the greatness of Shawn's 96 has been heavily mythologized in some quarters. I don't even think he was the best U.S. worker that year.

Well in a month or two it's going to be out there because I will be SHOCKED if the AWA Set does not really shine a light on him and the Portland set will expand it.