Dylan Waco

There have been two good Memphis Scaffold matches. The match on the set and Greene v. Jarrett match from 70's. Both were two out of three falls.

My thoughts dragged over from the SC Greatest WWE matches forum Jarrett v. Shawn was a borderline pick for me coming in, now it is a definate. i really like that they basically work a slightly modernized Tennessee style match in Nashville. Jarrett is awesome with his stalling tactics, my favorite being him counting along with The Roadie as the ref counts to nine before rolling back in and and out. Of course Michaels chases him down and knocks him out with a straight right. Match is based on a lot of stuff like this. Michaels strikes suck now, but they were decent enough then. Jarrett is awesome reacting befuddled at all of Michaels "high end" offense (mostly splashes of various ilks) and the Roadie is a great second here from the intros on, taunting, taking nasty bumps, working the crowd, and even deliver a nice clothesline on the outside. Michaels over the top bumps really work here also as they are well spaced and timed and make a nice contrast to Jarrett's overtly comedic schtick when he is getting slapped around by Michaels. Finish fits with the theme of Southern style and the overall match and is quite good. Not sure where it will rate, but of the stuff I have gone back and watched from 95, this is my top pick right now.

It's really, really bad. I got an advance copy via leakage a week or so again myself. I couldn't believe how awful it was, and my standards for wrestling books are very low

The pre-edit version included a lot of that info. The key difference of course is that back then wrestlers could leave territories fairly easily and go somewhere else if the schedule or conditions were fucked (as they often were). No such option exists now.

Bill Bennett and David Kuo have a new online magazine www.culture11.com It launched today and I have an article up on the corporate takeover of pro wrestling. here is the link http://www.culture11.com/node/31716?from=flash

Snow worked a lot of bigger northeast and midwest indies during that run. There is a shocking amount of random Snow fancam footage from the period floating around out there, a lot of which was pimped via one of the PWI advertisers pretty regularly. I would be a liar if I said I knew names or dates, but there was a famous"25 foot ladder match", the sabu matches, the aforementioned Benoit match and I think at least one highly touted match with the pre-Taz, Tasmaniac.

Lynch preferring WMIV to ClashI is amusing

A little birdie sent me the Meltzer prelim review and it is all over the place. He actually vouches for Randazzo's credibility and his sources which up until this point has been the major knock on him. On the other hand he weirdly suggests the book isn't balanced, which I think misses the point of the book altogether. On top of that he just pulls some shit out of his ass, claiming for example that Randazzo argues that Benoit was evil from the beginning and suggesting that there is no good stuff in the book about Benoit which simply isn't true. Again the book is about Benoit's warped sense of priorities and the crazy shit he did to fit in and "respect" a wildly destructive business. Meltzer doesn't appear to understand this for whatever reason, and even though he gives it a sort of middling review, he won't "get" the book if he can't even figure out what it is about.

Well, that sucks

Bockwinkel v. Lawler talk from the other thread has me curious about what the best thing to trickle out of the archives has been so far? I can't remember anything this interesting, though some of the 80/81 MSG cards have been interesting to me. I've only had the service for two years though. Anything top the Lawler/Bock match?

Getting burned is part of working in a kitchen. It is also far more common, than someone shooting on you in a wrestling ring. If you were getting trained in a kitchen and a guy purposefully burned the shit out of you would you try and find someway to rationalize it as a reasonable part of "learning the business", or would you regard it as sadism of the worst ilk? I think the most interesting thing that could come of this book would be fans reevaluating why it is that we make exceptions for bad behavior in this business that we would never even think of making for others.

I agree with John's point, but I think the "all the sleaze must be true!" contingent is largely a response to long time fans realizing that the business is in fact one of the sleaziest in the world. In other words the point is that a lot of these fucked up stories are entirely believable within the existing established norms of pro wrestling. The stories are born of the reality of business. Not vice versa.

As a former wrestler (not pro) with a martial arts background, I am trying to figure out what on earth random punches to the face would teach anyone in a dojo setting. It certainly doesn't teach you how to "take care of yourself".

Foley took crazy bumps in virtually every match going back to his WWE debut where Billington tried to kill him. Think about it SLL. Staple Foley bumps include: elbow drop to little or no protection from apron to the floor. running knee first slam into ring steps, with the flip bump running over the top rope clothesline to floor rope hangmen spot Almost all of Foley's big matches and most of his minor ones include at least one of these spots, and that includes stuff from the Attitude era...and these are just staple Foley spots (which is sort of the point, Foley making crazy bumps look normal fucks with everyones sense of proportion).

"respecting the business" is like the constant references to America as the "homeland" post-9/11. It is a creepy term tossed around by uncomfortable folks condoning and applauding behavior and actions that would be totally unacceptable in any other setting. Think about it, what does "respect the business" even mean? When was the last time you caught someone applauding the P+L sheet at Barnes and Noble or chanting "Best Buy! Best Buy! Best Buy!" because they got good customer service while shopping for an iPod. What the heel is it about the wrestling business that makes it something that must be "respected!" in such an overt, dedicated way..something most Americans don't even do with their own country.

Nash is in no way responsible for the death of WCW. That is a talking point that needs to be taken out back and shot.

Jushin Liger not wanting to leave the dojo and going back at 2AM so he could practice crazy new spots with helpless Young Boys is for some reason really apalling to me.

Or are you beating them up "for the business"?

Yes.

I disagree with Cox. I think Matthew's narrative style makes it much more readable and interesting then the average book on wrestling. A point-by-point Scott Williams style book on Benoit would have been a lot less interesting and frankly I think a lot of the crazy shit that went on would seem more "normal" without Randazzo's willingness to point out that things like the Stampede Wrestling traveling situation really was subhuman treatment. To answer the earlier question, Matthew Randazzo is an old "IWC" personality though I'm sure he would cringe at that term. I think I first encountered him on the net about nine years ago. He was a teenager then and was one of the bigger contributors over at a1wrestling.com, particularly in the Kawada Appreciation FanZone section, which for a while was probably the most interesting match discussion forum on the net. He and I worked on a few ridiculous projects over the years and I got to know him pretty well. Then one day about five years ago he just "disappeared" from the "scene" so to speak. He has always been a good writer and though extremely combative and very good guy. I was happy to see the book come out as I knew he would do the topic justice.

What gets me is that people are saying that without even having looked at the fucking book. I don't want to turn this into "I know the author, I am kewl!" shit, but I have know Randazzo for years and argued with him bitterly at times over everything from the quality of Jawbreaker albums to the merits or Christopher Hitchens writing. Matthew can be abrasive and stubborn as shit, but he's not a liar. He is actually remarkably straight forward by the standards of most net personalities. He wouldn't go to print with anything that was bullshit. He is far too meticulous and it's not his style anyhow (not to mention, you know that shit was vetted by Phoenix books legal staff). I would venture to say that anyone who has dealt with him on the net or in person over the years would say the same. Really though he is going to get a ton of shit for this. He'll be called a mark version of Jim Wilson by the sort of douches who hero worship Dean Malenko for merely staying alive (by the way, lets be honest..all of Deans friends were hardcore drug addicts..what are the odds a guy working a similar style, running the road with them, and being closer than "brothers" wasn't a pill popper himself..seriously). He won't give a shit of course, but it is sad. The very folks who should read this book and take a second look at the nature of the business either won't read the book at all or will take a tough tone toward the messenger instead of the message.

I have a copy. Will be finished soon enough. It is very good. I have known Matthew for years and his writing style is something that is very unique and frankly "fits" when telling a story as fucked up as the one he is telling in the book. It will rub a lot of smart fans the wrong way, which is a good thing. He takes a lot of shots at the sort of hyper fanboy culture that creates a hallmark line of Benoit clones, i.e. workrate "freaks" who slowly commit suicide as a testament to their commitment as workers..which deep down has more to do with being a mark for the business and themselves than anything else. I'm going to try and get Mooneyham to read it and do it a write up on it in the paper down here. Mike would probably have a stroke looking at a lot of the shit in the book, but I think there is a really interesting and serious argument to be had about the things Matthew raises in the book. One other thing. It is listed as a True Crime book at Barnes and Noble, so don't go looking in the Wrestling section. I'm staff rec'ing it down here so it gets more visibility (yes I work at BN).

I wonder how much AWA footage will be on the Hennig DVD? I'd love to see the infamous Bock match on there, and assume it will be. Didn't Hennig work some strange WWF bouts in the early 80's opposite Eddie Gilbert? They won't make the cut, but they might be interesting.

This is a tremendous thread. Quick thoughts and questions.. - I'm a big fan of that Waltman v. Bret match, but that powerbomb spot is actually one of the only actively bad portions of the match. It is something that goes against the entire flow of the match and steps outside of the theme of the bout itself. Here is my review of it "Context is key in that match. A big part of the reason the match works as well as it does is because of what was going on around it. Waltman was extremely green and looked it. He had upset Razor Ramon to get his break, and Ramon was a top echelon guy in alot of ways because of his size and finisher. Bret was in his own right still kinda of viewed as a fluke champion in some ways. He hadn't really had a run of beating "big" guys that would establish him as a giant killer, which has really been the previous trend for WWF babyface champs. So the dynamic was interesting. Kid was a major, major underdog, but Bret was kind of the underdog champion, so the heirchial style of match they worked here was actually pretty tricky. When Bret gives that look at the beginning it is almost a signal that it is a match of underdogs and underappreciated guys. Waltman gets to hang with Bret on the ground and work him over with some speed and they sort of play that Bret isn't taking him serously. Then Bret starts almost heeling on him with beatdown tactics and wear down holds, before Kid starts busting out with the high risk shit. The high risk shit is really important for two reasons. In alot of peoples eyes Kid was more of an underdog opposite Ramon, than he was opposite Bret because of size/strength. He beat Ramon with high risk, so when he starts unloading flip planchas and top rope legdrops the nearfalls are really hot because Bret isn't as big or strong as Razor. Also it's important to remember that these sort of things were exceedingly rare at that period on U.S. tv, espcially that high up the card. So it is something different. Really the finishing stretch to the match is great. Bret actually eats a nasty boot off of his second rope elbow for a nice transition. They do a really smart Waltman escape from the sharpshooter that sort of subtley puts him over. The run of nearfalls is really well done. The finish itself is also something I have always loved and remembered exactly from the first time I saw it, as Waltman missing a top rope dropkick, leading straight to a sharpshooter and an immediate submission, is really the perfect end to a match like this. This match has been compared to Windham v. Scorpio before and in some ways it works, but it's structurally different because Windham was working big dominant champ v. Scorpio, whereas Bret was working developing underdog champ v. Kid. One other thing, and this may seem minor, but my main criticism of the match is that Waltman uses a powerbomb. It probably seems really nitpicking to some, but really it was a poor choice. Waltman as underdog, flippy young guy, really doesn't work if he is using heavily protected big tiime power moves as setup spots that aren't even getting hot nearfalls. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was precursor to the X Division style trash we see today, but it was the "little guys are technical and no every move" concept that did give rise to that feces and this is an early and inappropriate manifestation of it. " - Loss' point about building to highspots and the effect they can have in that context is a really obvious point, but one that really is ignored by a lot of modern fans, even though they respond to that sort of match development with more excitiment, then they do to the average spotfest. I just rewatched Austin v. Bret SS 96 and the way they build to a standard superplex is really incredible and one of the really bright spots of a tremendous match. - SLL how does a match like DDP v. Goldberg fit into the simple structure you talk about? Obviously it can be seen as a variation of the existing standard formula, but as the saying goes is a difference in degree if big enough a difference in kind? After all, Page was clearly the underdog BUT his finisher was seen as a legit killer, more dangerous than the unbeatable Goldberg even. So how do these "clash of the titans" style matches fit (Warrior v. Hogan for another example)?