Dylan Waco

I"m not really adding anything to this thread, I just wanted to point out that I really like that Taue v. Marufuji match, but the best spot in it is the Taue sunset flip nearfall, oddly because it was a strange role reversal spot with Taue using flashy offense (for him) to try and "steal" a win from the flippy upcomer. Still, I agree with almost everything SLL has said.

Just want to say that "All American" Hogan slowly walking to the ring and playing to the cheers of the crowd while a retard is being smacked around by two terrorist sympathizers, strikes me as one of the worst "saves" in wrestling history.

Easier to throw Regal under the buss then Batista or roided Taker

What about the comedy is "jerking off"? If it gets the crowd going and that was the purpose of it, it would seem to be self-evident that it wasn't masturbatory. Are you really arguing that this was just an example of four guys fucking off for their own personal shits and giggles or am I misreading the usage of the term "jerking off" here? Match itself I find to be decent. The opening comedy is a lot of fun and distinguishes it from 80's tags, but I wouldn't throw it on my top ten from the 80's, because it doesn't really go anywhere after that.

I'd be interested to see what Shaunas is up too, but no one has spoken to him in years so far as I know. John The Baptist/Matthew Randazzo is another guy I used to chat up a lot that I lost touch with. I heard from Mike Oles that he is still lurking around on some sites. He also apparently has written a book on the Benoit murders, which is funny considering the fact that last I talked to him he was working on a novel.

Pillman's part of the promo on this weeks RAW is fucking hilarous. He rants about Dusty being a fat ego driven abusive and neglectful father and how much he loves it. Then he says he'll wrestle Goldust in a dress but that isn't all he'll get into of Marlena's. Hell the whole segment is awesome, including the Stone Cold team staredown. Also next week ECW show will be my all time favorite episode with the Bruiser Brothers/Raven v. Dreamer/Douglas/Sandman clusterfuck.

I really was disappointed by Valentine v. DBS and I love both guys. Neidhart v. DK was really fun though, and there were two or three other matches on the show I would rate.

It's not a matter of giving anyone a pass John. It's a matter of not being surprised and thinking (like everyone else in this thread other than you) that focusing on the title change issue really misses the point of the entire piece. There are a lot of things to go after Mooneyham for. His totally uncritical hero worship of Flair would be at the top of the list (and I say that as a guy you have accused of being a Flair Fan numerous times over the years). His unwillingness to fact check a personal memoir piece written by Shawn Michaels really isn't at the top of that list. Again if you want to argue about Mooneyham giving him the byline in the first place fine, but I really don't see why you would go back and say "sorry Shawn you are wrong about this". The fact is that outside of John D. Williams the number of people who will give a shit is remarkably low, for the simple fact that even the people who catch it aren't going to harp on it..because it isn't a historical piece. Addendum: Also you may want to re-read that paragraph you quoted. I clearly said that the bias was never going to "slip out of his writing". In other words we agree.

Not a complicated post, but a typical post and the reason a lot of people hit the "eject button" on tOA along time ago. There is a lot in that story that is strange and worth commenting on, but the historical accuracy of Shawn Michaels comments really isn't one of them. The constant harping on shit like that is really one of the primary reasons that the old axis of smarks from the early internet age don't have near the influence they used to. Not saying that you give a shit one way or the other, but I personally think it is unfortunate because I still enjoy reading a lot of what you and Frank write. Anyhow, I know Mooneyham, though not that well. He is a friend of a friend. I've told him face to face (as in real life face to face, not screen name to screen name), that I think he is too much of a sentimentalist at times in his columns and you are right that he is a mark for the "boys in the back"..he is also friends with a lot of them and has been for thirty-plus years in many cases. Mike was a fan and friend to guys like Sandy Scott and Henry Marcus before he became a full time journalist. I don't think you are ever going to see that sort of bias slip out of his writing. In a lot of ways he is wrestlings version of an inner-circle beltway journalist like say Walter Pincus from the Washington Post. He is never going to rock the boat so much that he looses his sources or (more importantly if you are a sane person) his friends, but he will report what is there and isn't afraid of stirring shit from time to time. While there are many errors in the book he co-authored with Sean Aussel (Sex, Lies and Headlocks), it is hardly an uncritical, fanboys look at the wrestling industry. In interviews following the Benoit murders, he was actually the hardest on the business of any of the guys I saw out there besides those that were using the event as a way of pushing their own agenda. But he is still friend, fan, journalist in that order and I don't think he would deny that. As for where the fault lies for the Michaels piece...Mike has been running a series of Flair's retirement for a month now. He wanted Michaels to have the last word for whatever reason and turned the column over to him. I can see an argument against doing that, but once a person has done that I really don't see any reason to go back and say "er your opening thoughts are historically inaccurate", when most of the fans don't give a shit because it isn't a piece that has anything to do with that sort of thing. Again the article was a personal reflection piece and the idea that Mooneyhams journalistic credibility is shot because he didn't fact check someone elses memories is kind of silly..especially when that sort of thing is remarkably common in actual history text, let alone memoirs.

Found it. The whole Raw was great, but that segment was awesome.

If anyone knows where i can get the full flair farewell address online let me know.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/mar/30...ture_35384/?wap That is the link to an article Michaels wrote under Mike Mooneyham's byline for my local paper (Charleston, SC). Mooneyham is one of Flair's best friends and in fact Flair flew Mike to the HoF ceremony and Mania on his own dime. Here is the closing paragraph of the article. "For me it is almost like a really old couple who have spent all their lives together. And when one of them passes, the other one sort of loses their will to live. And they go shortly afterwards. I have to be honest. For the first time, I am seriously considering that if Ric is gone, I shortly want to follow. It's the end of an era, and I'm part of that era. I just don't know that I even want to exist."

I actually thought Flair was the better worker in the match with Michaels. Yeah Michaels provided the two most athletic spots, but he also looked visibly uncomfortable throughout the match and his strikes aside from the superkicks were particularly awful even by the standards one associates with HBK. The one botched spot of the match was the bridge up spot which frankly neither guy looked like they were ready for. The finish is probably the single best finish I have ever seen. I have talked here and elsewhere about how much I love the Savage/Warrior match from VII. The mechanics of the match weren't out of this world, but there were no glaring flaws and the finish was perfectly executed. Everything from Savage kicking out of Warrior's finish was pure emotion and character based storytelling that is rarely done well in pro wrestling. It was a unique match and my favorite match in WrestleMania history...until last night. Not saying Flair v. Michaels was better than Savage v. Warrior. But to a long time Flair fan (lower case f stressed) it was a good capstone to a great career, and the finish made it. I liked a lot of the work itself. The throwback mat exchanges. The cheap crossbody spot, with HBK eating the corner bodypress. I thought the big spots, while nasty looking in form, were well done from an "effect" perspective. Flair ate one last nasty bump, with the over the top rope bump. His chops were awesome, and the Michaels comeback superkick number 1 was really a very well played spot both mechanical and from a drama perspective. Loved the butterfly suplex. I also loved Flair breaking out the cheating spots, and Michaels yelling at Flair to "get up" only to get lowblowed was a dirtiest player in the game version of the only really interesting spot from Angle/Michaels WM match a few years back. But the finish is what made it epic. It was really a combination of Andre/Hogan and Warrior/Savage in that there was an explicitly visual aspect and an explicit aspect based on backstory and psychology. Much will be written about this, and I can't do it justice, but it made the show, and really nothing afterward could follow it. I agree that Edge v. Taker was technically better, but Taker is always good in these situations and really the whole thing just seemed emotionless after the height of Flair v. Michaels. It really should have been the last match.

Not sure if Waltman was really a natural as much as he was a young, goofy looking kid that would do just about any crazy thing to get a match over. He was basically a suicidal, post-Crockett version of Sam Houston.

I didn't say he learned from The Rock..I said he took cues from The Rock and the broader theatrical style of the WWE at the time. Pretending that wrestlers exist in vacuums and don't cues from others is sort of ridiculous. The "natural" Owen Hart sure as shit wasn't running on a blank slate for example.

Not kidding at all. I should qualify this a bit by saying that I didn't see any OVW Lesnar, so it is possible that I am way off. Anyhow, I thought he was obviously great right from his WWE debut. Did he have some bad habits early on? Yeah, but they were mostly errors born out of trying TOO hard. He had a tendency to overbump for example, but so did Vader and you almost never see that used as a knock against him (furthermore Lesnar was working in a naturally theatrical enviornment and taking cues from guys like The Rock). Still as a package, right away he had all the obvious tools; he new how to sell and bump well, he was instantly great at pacing, he was good at getting over "big moves", he had presence, good moveset especially for a bigger guy, awesome snap to his movements in general, et. Go back and watch Brock's stuff. I did about six or seven months ago and was stunned at how universally good and interesting it was from the early stuff opposite the Hardyz and Bubba Dudley on down the line.

The worst time of Flair's career was 03-04 where he was consistently the worst guy on WWE tv visibly calling spots, tripping over himself and bringing nothing to the table. Evolution was really a bad arrangement for Ric all around and it showed. A combination of smarter booking and Flair giving up on being something he hasn't been in years has made him actively good for the last three years. At times he has been great, though in a totally different way than before. Since 05 he has had matches with Edge, Foley, HHH, Big Show and Angle worth tracking down. The truth is that Flair is a pretty good garbage wrestler for reasons that have a lot to do with who he really is at this point in his life.

Brock Lesnar. Actually all things considered I would only rank Windham and Owen ahead of him in this regard.

"But he *is* an old bastard who sucks" -jdw page three, this thread My bad..the term you used was old bastard

John, I have no problem at all with your dislike for Flairs performances or the mostly non-existant Flair Fan strawmen (not arguing they never existed, just that they tend to be a rare breed these days, at least in the places of wrestling fandom I venture into), but really there is alot of stuff here that I really think you aren't "getting" and to be honest I think alot of the stuff you criticize anti-Backlund guys for is relevent here. I've seen you in the past talk about the myth of Backlunds overness waning as time went on. You say when you go back and watch the tapes for the most part this is a bullshit Meltzer talking point. It has been a long time since I have watched Backlund matches because frankly I"m not the biggest Bob fan, but I have no problem granting that you are probably right on this issue and the talking point is mostly wrong. The thing is though, that even if you think Flair is a worthless old far who sucks, much like Backlund in the waning days of his title run he is still over with the crowd. I'm not talking about kinda over either. To quote you, "watch the tapes". Flair has consistently been one of the most over guys on the roster for virtually the whole time he's be in the company. At this point I would be hard pressed to come up with five faces on the roster who are more consistently over then him. Does this mean he should have the title? Not neccesarily, but when you combine it with the fact that half the fucking roster is injured or suspended, and the fact that they have three World titles to build around, only one of which is held by a fully seasoned pro wrestler and well..the idea doesn't really seem bad given the climate. In talking about WON awards, workers, et. you often talk about consensus. The consensus here goes against you in arguing that Flair "sucks". I personally think Flair was one of the worst guys on the roster during the Evolution period, visibly calling spots, routinely fucking up his signature stuff, constantly looking lost, et. On the other hand I think he has varied from serviceable to good since about 05. Once again this seems to be a consensus view. Of course consensus doesn't make it "right". It just makes it widespread and wrestling is a business designed to appeal to a wide audience. The Rocky Balboa talking point is also interesting in that the whole concept starting essentially as an argument by writers to find some sort of analogy to push a concept they wanted to see for a while..Flair with one last title run. The guy I work with who was a young Mid-Atlantic devotee beforing moving to Flordia and going to shows at the Eddie Graham Sporting Complex, doesn't ever use shit like that as a defense for why he wants Flair to have one last run..he just thinks Flair deserves one last run. Deserves is a murky word in a discussion like this, but the reality is that there are alot of guys out there like Mitch and not a lot of guys making Hollywood comparisons to justify what they want to see.

Man the "Flair Fan", "Bangs", et. talking points really need to be retired at this point as they literally are tossed out routinely with little purpose at this point. I'm not neccesarily a fan of puting the belt on Flair now or ever again. In fact I wish he had retired ten years ago. That said the idea that this view is some whacky view held only by a delusional minority of cult following "Flair Fans" is overtly ridiculous. Flair for all of his faults (and lord knows there are many) still gets big reactions at the shows consistently, which is more than one can say for most faces on the roster. There is a perfectly good argument for Flair not getting the belt because they ought to be building young guys or because it diverts the focus from other players or because nostalgia shots dont' really work out long term, et. There is no good argument for "Flair doesn't deserve to have a big run at the end because most fans think he is an old bastard that sucks", because the available evidence suggests otherwise (and yes I am aware that pops don't equate to drawing, but pops do generally equate to a level of interest, which is really the point).

I got several things from him years ago. I"m fairly certain TY from a1 also made some deals with Shaunas. To be honest I have no clue what I do and don't have anymore and I'm really close to just selling what I have off as I never watch any of it and I don't have a VCR to DVD converter.

I think it is because it sort of exposes the real dangers of wrestling the hardhitting style that alot of smarks like.

Maan I would so be into that. What else is there? I assume there must be tape dealers with BANG! stuff. I'm just about the only dude w/ BANG! tapes, I'd have to find them to convert to DVD. I know I have at least the iron man match w/ Windsor and a tag or two. I recall the tag exchanges w/ Brent Dail being his best stuff there. Nobody has a tape of his match w/ London, but there is a music video of it on one of my tapes. Other stuff... USWA '91: A squash w/ RVD commentary from the same comp set. A singles match with RVD that I know at least has clips on Jeff Osborne's Memphis '91 Yearbook tape. ECW '94-'95: vs Malenko in the NWA tourny (clipped on TV), vs Douglas (TV), vs Benoit (TV, I think), vs Snow (TV), vs Joe Malenko (disappearing trader Shaunas LeFrancois shot a handheld that I've never seen floating around, sadly) Other indies: Did TV for some group in Florida in '95 that also used Kanemoto and some FMW guys. I think Friedlander has the shows. Had a mat-based match w/ Sabu in Michigan in '94. Worked Chikara's TWGP in '06. Worked Brent Albright in the NWA tourny getting a DVD release. It was one of their last shows, I don't think it aired. I think I may have Nish v. Joe Malenko via the Shaunas handheld. Hadn't that name in years..whatever happened to him?

There are alot of precautions to take. Perhaps we can ban wrestlers from having custody of their children or even having kids at all? That is one way that I can think of which would absolutely guarantee that this would never happen again. There are others I can envision..most equally draconian, absurd or implausable. The point is this..the emotional response of "we have to do something" is entirely reasonable and justified..but the reality is if these guys won't do something for themselves there is NOTHING you or me or the federal government or Vince McMahon can or will do for them. There will always be masking agents for drugs. There will always be "soft" doctors (espcially on notoriously corrupt state athletic comissions) that will let the guy with the brain bruises wrestle. There were always be shady promoters who will run their workers into the ground for a buck. If you think Congress can change any of that you are living in the world of fantasy. To return to the earlier analogy, yes there regulations on who can and can't drive..somehow this does not stop drunk driving or crazy old people from driving into Denny's and killing bystanders. The reason it doesn't is because crazy shit sometimes happens, espcially when the necessary tools for such shit are readily available in a given enviornment. There is nothing that could be done that would guarantee no more Daniel Benoits. There is nothing that can be done that will even reduce the risk in any measurable way