JerryvonKramer

DiBiase / Duggan multi-stip and DiBiase / Flair would be standard ones to roll out. Bock / Zbyszko from AWA too.

OJ, two things: 1. If it's just you listening to Rod Stewart on your own cool. If it's you having to rank your top 100 artists of all time, that's where the comparison factor comes in. It is kind of forced by the terms of the project. Although why Flair is the only barometer I don't know, I prefer multiple barometers. 2. Okay, maybe I will do the time stamps if I get some time. I prefer to be positive and talk up things I like than run things down that I don't, but since you asked I'll make some space to do it.

Haven't done my review of this one yet, been saving it. Fun fact: This is often written up as Jack's last match in professional wrestling. See Wikipedia: But it's not his last match. From what I can see, this is: WWF @ Landover, MD - Capital Centre - February 9, 1985 (matinee) Blackjack Mulligan & Jimmy Snuka defeated Brutus Beefcake & Johnny V Don Muraco & Mr. Fuji defeated SD Jones & George Wells WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan & Hillbilly Jim defeated the Moondogs Nikolai Volkoff & the Iron Sheik defeated WWF Tag Team Champions Mike Rotundo & Barry Windham in a non-title match Roddy Piper & Bob Orton Jr. defeated Jack & Jerry Brisco WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan & Hillbilly Jim won a $50,000 tag team battle royal The Briscos had a match on WWF TV in Jan 1985 too (see Championship Wrestling, 1/5/85). Mid-Atlantic Gateway has this even after that: 02/28 Providence, RI Jack & Jerry Brisco beat Adrian Adonis & Dick Murdoch You see this quite a bit on Wikipedia. Like the idea that Hogan's first match in WWF was the MSG debut vs. DiBiase in 1979. We watched an earlier match vs. Denucci on Titans. I even edited that wiki myself to correct it!!

For some reason I thought he only had a handful matches on tape. That's the truth.

Well it should make you happy that since I've set my will and testament on that topic pretty much in stone with the 5-part series, I'd really rather not rehearse the debate ever again. It's there if anyone wants to go through it all. I really am for critiques of other candidates, without necessarily comparing across to Flair. My hope is that with time it won't even be a case of "fairness" to Flair, people will scrutinise every candidate to the same level. Re: El Dandy vs. Azteca, I did decide against doing the whole time stamp thing because it seemed tiresome and I got the impression no one would have particularly appreciated that. Another example of how I'm generally disinclined to have debates on that sort of granular level. I might ask people to explain why they are high on a match I consider to be not far above a piece of shit (see LA Park vs. El Mesias), but after they have done so that's where it ends for me. I don't want to change their mind, just understand it better. I really dislike Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now, a film typically given 5 stars by film buffs and horror fans alike. I really hate the film, but that doesn't stop me trying to gain an appreciation of why people rate it so highly. I'm not going to debate them on it though, I'd rather just read their thoughts.

I find this to be contrary to one of the key values of online message boards. We're always meeting people who don't see things like we do. Among the reasons we engage in discussions is to learn things from others, have them convince of us their views, convince them of ours, or just come to the realization there is no agreement. I do reviews, I put them out there. I wrote my massive 20,000-word Dylan article. I put the arguments forward for why I consider things to be great. I make podcasts and do my best to be clear about why I think things. But for the person who is not swayed -- after all of that -- that Highway 61 isn't an all-time great album or that Clash 6 isn't an all-time great match, I literally have no comeback and no desire to continue the conversation beyond that. We're just too far apart for meaningful dialogue. Sometimes you see it the other way around too -- I am probably lower on El Dandy vs. Angel Azteca than any other poster here. I didn't see a strong desire from anyone to debate it beyond a "you're mad Parv" or "you just don't get Lucha". I totally get that and wouldn't want them to try to convince me of it either. I find comparisons BETWEEN great works to be more interesting than disputing the fact that the great work is great in the first place. You might say that's my limitation as a person, but I when I was a younger guy (let's say early 20s) I really did want people to accept that certain albums were great and GOAT level and all that. Now, after reading, and indeed writing, books about how the human mind works, I understand that once opinions are formed they are hard to change and dislodge. People more likely to dig their heels in about not liking Dylan or his albums, than accepting his and their greatness. So the non-Dylan fan is a non-starter for the argument. I will only debate guys who accept that the works in themselves are self-evidently great. You are a Dylan fan you told me, I'd be happy to debate you. I have really great mates who are massive Dylan fans, bigger than I am, and we have had real disagreements over things. I'm really low on Infidels, I'm high on Nashville Skyline. I don't like the Planet Waves period. I hate Empire Burleque. There's loads of scope for great debate within the framework of Dylan fan to Dylan fan. But the non-Dylan fan is a non-starter. I'm just not interested in having that discussion again, it's like talking wrestling with a non-wrestling fan. I can't stand it. "You know it's fake right?" "Dylan can't sing" same sort of deal. Patience wears thin. I hope you appreciate what I'm saying. And I guess this is the point some of us make: the fact you are bored by Hamlet literally shouldn't and doesn't diminish the greatness of the work. All it says is "jdw is bored by Hamlet". And so it is with Clash 6 and so it is with Flair in general. Your boredom should not factor into where you place Hamlet in the overall scheme of great literary works. Doesn't mean you can't place Lear or Paradise Lost or whatever above it, but your own personal boredom is hardly fair to the work. It makes the list too "swingy" for me. I appreciate it is ALWAYS subjective, but things like burn out push it to an extreme point which to me seriously undermines the process. I can't believe I just used Hamlet as a stand in for Clash 6, lol. I'm happy to consider opinions -- it's basically what I do every day. I am sitting next to a mountain of Shakespeare criticism. Sometimes I read insights that make me see something a different way. But not one of those critics is sitting there saying "y'know Hamlet wasn't all that". Again it's a basic non-starter. Clash 6 vs. 6/9/95 is a really interesting comparison, but only if it's coming from someone who thinks both matches are undoubted 5-star affairs. It is much less interesting from someone who loves one but doesn't think the other is all that. I don't think The Who are all that. Never have, never will. A Dylan or Beatles or Kinks vs. Who argument is of zero interest to me because I point-blank don't recognise the Who as being great. Hope that makes sense. Yes, I'll accept that we can influence each other. People have influenced me on here -- a lot. I have probably influenced people. When I see Jack Brisco making people's lists, I do think I've at least helped his case. But ... and this may appear counter-intuitive, I strongly believe that people HAVE to come to their own conclusions based on their own viewing. My reviews, my podcasts, etc. can only have as their overall aim the will to get people to watch the stuff themselves. No one is going to think "Brisco is great because Parv said so", they are going to sit down watch the stuff, maybe see some of the stuff I've been saying, and maybe see some stuff for themselves. They come to their own conclusions, and then the opinion is formed. I've influenced rather than swayed. Debates and arguments with sides is different. Seldom do people change their view in an embattled argument, it is human psychology to become more entrenched and to defend your existing view much more than it is to accept the view of your "opponent". Basic psychology. And because of that, when it comes to putting over stuff I really like, I prefer the form of the monologue, the review, the lecture, the podcast talking to my friend who is going to give me space to put across my ideas. I think these are more effective mediums for "influence" than the debate is, especially when it comes to putting over the greatness of individual works or matches. In a sense, here we are arguing with sets of already-formed conclusions. And in some cases, I don't wish to do that because it can seem futile. What I wanted to do here was to subject Kawada to a little bit of scrutiny, just to see what sorts of arguments might emerge. Not a troll, just to see how quickly and readily Kawada-advocates would rush to his defence. Note: not a terrible thing, it's a good thing. We can all come out of it thinking more about Kawada, his strengths and weaknesses. I would prefer every GOAT-tier candidate thread to be a bit like that -- people asking questions and poking at the candicacy in interesting ways -- than for that only to be happening for Flair. That is much more "interesting" to me, than arguing over whether the high end matches on which Flair's case is largely built are really high end.

Yeah, I think there's a big difference between 40 mins and 60 mins. For whatever reason those workers and that style can carry 40 mins, but not 60. They seem to run out of ideas or go to the same wells too often over 60. Now for that response to jdw.

mprice - I do wonder if the sheer quality of the early 90s Jumbo feud stuff can sometimes get lost under the weight of 94-7 era.

Some fantastic posts above. Only thing I want to add is that on the Shawn comparison, I don't really consider it as a valid comparison. Ric and Shawn are mentioned in the same breath because in kayfabe terms both were put over by WWF (Ric also by WCW) as the GOAT. I honestly believe that the ONLY two reasons a lot of fans list Shawn as a #1 contender is because, first, that hype has rubbed off (i.e. Vince's machine has worked) and #2 because they are fans who tend to stay within WWE bubble. I'm not saying it is impossible for someone to have Shawn as a Top 5 having watched a ton of 70s, 80s, 90s etc., but I don't think it's a coincidence that on a board where a lot of guys have done that Shawn is not generally considered top tier. Now, you might say the same about Ric, he was put over by both the WWF and in the sheets (especially Meltzer) as the GOAT for probably longer than Shawn was. The difference is that with Ric we can point to a metric ton of great matches. With Shawn EVEN IF you accept that they are great matches (which, as you know, I tend not to) the body of work is still slim relative to a Jumbo, a Flair, a Misawa etc. He's a WWF candidate, and that can only go so far. So in a sense, the comparison is a misnomer in my view and that's why I basically gave it very little time on the part 4 show. I do think Dylan raises some interesting points with the comparison, and I do think that one of the reasons Flair himself (and other wrestlers) put Shawn over so hard is because there are superficial similarities in their working styles: in short, they both worked from underneath a lot, and the ability to make others look good has always had a premium among the boys and among smart fans. And even I'd accept that Shawn could be great at that. Loss hit on some good points to show up where the similarities between Flair and Michaels end though, and I'm not sure I have much more to add. It's difficult for me to talk about Michaels much because my personal loathing for both him and modern WWE main event style comes into play, and I feel it brings out the worst in me.

Something that may surprise people is that I am really predisposed to like Scorpio and he's someone I plan on revisiting before the final ballot. I absolutely loved him in the early 90s WCW setting back when I was a kid, I was pretty much a Bagwell and Scorpio mark, rare because of course I was mostly a heel guy. So I'd totally be up for watching his ECW stuff. Will take this to GWE. But, yeah, Scorpio is someone who might be legit top 10 for offense if I really thought about it.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28585-toshiaki-kawada/?p=5704430 Almost certainly can find more from just today. Glad to see you haven't lost your flair for literal-mindedness. I have to sleep, but will address your post properly tomorrow morning.

I'm still waiting for a single post where you don't try to put your age over.

I'm just saying I have literally nothing to say to someone who doesn't consider the high end stuff high end. Like I'm a Dylan fan and I also have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think his five star albums are five star. I'm a Shakespeare lecturer too and have literally nothing to say to the guy who doesn't think Hamlet or King Lear are all that. Like nothing at all, I'm so not interested in conversion, or convincing someone about a particular work. If it's not obvious to you, then so be it. These are conversations I'm not willing to have because too much work to be done with those people and life is just too short. I can have a Flair vs. Kawada debate with someone who takes their high end stuff as a given, but not with someone who'd deny that one set of matches is high end. It's a basic non-starter for me. So there it is.

I agree with much of that jdw, but I think you overplay the point, or over emphasise it. By that, I mean many of the matches do have effective storylines and Flair does have psychology in them. Also, if you are not high on high end Flair matches, then fine, we have nothing else to talk about.

I'm just saying that it is matches like that that Flair critics tend to point to, rather than y'know Flair vs. Steamer / Garvin / Windham / Luger / Funk, etc. etc., take your pick. When I pull out less than stellar Kawada matches, there are mitigiating circimstances and I'm expected to take those into account, but as a Flair guy I'm also expected to accept people flat-out ignoring his top end stuff and hammering the same tired old points again and again using the selective evidence of a Flair vs. Sting or whatever, and then accept them trying to deny mitigating circumstances such as the greenness of the opponent. That's all.

jdw, if you haven't listened to the show, you should post all this in the Flair thread over at the GWE section. Cheers.

jdw a question: you seem quite generous in taking into consideration mitigating circimstances for those Kawada matches, but when you are making criticisms of Flair, are you as generous with considering the context? Let's say Clash 1 vs. Sting, a guy greener than grass who'd never been any where near having a match at that level or length, do you allow Flair the grace of the fact he was in a pretty tough spot to work a classic? Flair fans will seldom point to that as a great match, at least not on this board, even though it did make Sting a legit star. Just wondering. I mean, we can all see Flair has "stuff to do" in that match, but he was working a brutally limited opponent. Why would you knock Flair in that match but stick up for the 95 broadways? That's all.

Childs, Benoit might be top for execution, but moves lose their impact in his matches sometimes. Doesn't let them sink in.

Yeah sling, what I was getting at by him having to "relativise" the argument. You put it better than me I think.

Part 5 added to the OP:

I want to gain a sense of him on an average week, not necessarily uber-high end or best. I want to see his equivalent of Flair vs. Sam Houston or whatever. Not just for Kawada either but all candidates. I saw Jumbo vs. Big Boss Man from 1988 (I think it was) and thought that Flair would have got a much better match out of that. Luckily, there's a Kobashi vs. Bossman I've just stumbled across. I want to get a sense of how each of these elite workers are able to adapt their game to face lesser opponents. Since so much of the criticism from Flair doesn't come from his top end matches, but from random lesser ones. In fact, Kobashi vs. Bossman will likely be my first review.

Yeah, I saw a lot of them on 80s set. I had these at 4.5: Toshiaki Kawada & Ricky Fuyuki vs. Shunji Takano & Shinichi Nakano (7/19/88) Toshiaki Kawada & Ricky Fuyuki vs. Dan Kroffat & Doug Furnas (6/5/89) I also thought Kawada was excellent in this match which I had at 5 stars and in my top 100: Genichiro Tenryu & Toshiaki Kawada vs. Stan Hansen & Terry Gordy (12/16/88) Kawada was better than Misawa on the 80s stuff I thought, by some distance.

I'd prefer 90s matches while he was at his peak. If you read over the thread, many people said he stopped caring post-2000. For various reasons, I'd rather not consider post-peak stuff right now.

Thanks Chad. I will also ask a question: is Hase in 99 better than Lex Luger in 90?

That was not the only criticism I made, but I do think when comparing across time, the ability to go 60 especially with someone who have experience and chemistry with (as Kawada did with Misawa) is a good like-for-like comparison. It's a way you can measure anyone from Bryan to Lou Thesz, since the hour Broadway was a staple for so long. And a very good test of what a worker is made of. He needs more than Gary Albright, I want a whole list.