JerryvonKramer

They were the absolute shits in that match I reviewed the other day. The worst.

I always think it's obvious when listening to shows who are the "true fans" and who are the "workers". Like Jim Cornette, Jim Ross, Kevin Sullivan -- all those guys watch wrestling outside of their bubble, or at least have awareness of what went on and when.

Is that the match where they all deck Sting AGAIN? Makes me laugh every single time the Horsemen sucker Sting. He's so stupid, LOL

Those damn Millennials!

It's only just occurred to me, but was Vince making a deliberate push for a teenage audience in 94-6?

Someone told me once that that lower voiced guy is not always Baba, that there is in fact, another guy in the promotion who sounds a lot like him.

Also, Vince becomes a total pardoy of himself on commentary during that time. UNBELIEVABLE OMMYGODHEGOTIM within the first 20 seconds of a match. He is maybe at his throatiest during that time-frame.

This front cover says a lot about that era for me: I imagine "In Your House" to be spoken like one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. RADICAL! Everything is kinda wonky and wacky and zany. There's something about the era I find literally horrendous. I cannot STAND Shawn during that time. In fact, Todd Pettengill in general sums it up. The change from Mooney to Pettengill says EVERYTHING. Stupid stupid Pettigill sitting there eating his popcorn like an overgrown teenager. WCW presentation feels more classic: Closer to late 80s / early 90s WWF with Mean Gene there, news reports etc. I guess that presentational stuff means more to me that in-ring quality or actual booking.

I like the Triangle match from Starrcade 95.

I think some of this might also be because there is Wrestlecrap I can really love in an ironic way: The YETAYY!!! And Wrestlecrap I just hate (see all of the WWF stuff listed above). But to be sure, it's been a while for both, which is why I have the dates a bit mixed up.

It's a self-contained, silly, absurd, macho cartoon world where everything in life is resolved with violence. What's not to like? There's also the sort of Street Fighter concept that appeals to me. Look at this: I've always been drawn to the idea of putting vastly different types of competitor into combat. It's the gladitorial thing. And I think wrestling has something of that. Yes, everyone is a "wrestler", but Jerry Blackwell is absolutely nothing like Terry Funk who is absoluely nothing like Ric Flair, etc. etc. The personalities factor into that as well: swaggering Ric, completely no-nonsense Dory, completely over-the-top Terry, super-hero Hulk, squeaky clean Steamer, beach bum Muraco, THAT element is also really fun. Given those two things, you'd think I'd be a natural fan of something like UFC, but my attempts to watch it have been frustrated by: 1. everyone kinda being the same, it quickly became too obvious that only one style was going to dominante in a "real fight" and 2. characters aren't big enough. Wrestling does ALL of that so much better. These are some of the things I like in wrestling. I watch real sports "like a soap opera", by the way. My interest in football is centred on the personalities. I am really into tactics yes, but those tactics are an extension of the personalities of the managers. And that's how football can connote for me. In American Football, I got into the Seattle Seahawks primarily through the dynamic personalities of their various "heels" -- Legion of Boom, Lynch, Russell etc. Even my love of Shakespeare and drama comes down mainly to seeing different types of characters tested in various situations. Game of Thrones likewise has that appeal -- especially with its prediliction for "odd buddy" teamups.

Perhaps Loss can comment? I was mainly thinking of the first leg of Flair vs. Savage, Flair and Arn vs. the football guys was fun (that was 95 right?), Luger / Sting stuff was fun in 95. I dunno, beyond Dungeon of Doom, I think it's a solid year and do not dread getting to that period on WTBBP (beyond initial ANGER at Hogan and cronies coming in and Flair jobbing out, etc.) WWF 95 feels like the drizzling shits to me. All I can think about is the Godwins slopping DiBiase, horrendous Million Dollar Corporation angles, and about a million fucking Doinks and Dinks. Kinda blurry on what happened when, but I HATE that era. Duke the Dumpster. Men on a Mission. Adam Bomb. Heel Tatanka for fuck's sake. Yokozuna at almost 800lbs. Diesel as champ. Isaac Yankem. "In Your House" (lame packaging and concept even at the time). It's a hideous HIDEOUS period, with almost no redeeming features that I can think of. WCW still had a terrific roster of talent, even if the Hogan stuff was lame.

For my part, in response to the OP, I am automatically analytical about everything. Imagine a constant separate director's commentary track on everything simulataneously deconstructing the thing as it is happening. This is one reason why I hated night clubs and haven't been to one since about 2005, because I could never stop picking apart what was going on, and that is one arena where you just need to "let go" -- never my forte. I cannot "switch off". This is just a function of who I am and that's all there is to it. Didn't even dance at my own wedding beyond the 90 seconds that I had to, and even that was gate-crashed. I can enjoy stufft and be emotionally invested in it, but at the same time the critical mind is constantly asking questions about what's going on, how, why, etc. I guess this is why I love Seinfeld so much because their conversations unpacking the tiniest minuatae of life are pretty close to that inner voice that I have myself. I relate to that very closely, especially the Jerry-George conversations. All that said, I respect the fact that not everyone is like me. I maintain that the fandom is richer for a guy like Johnny who is experitential and anti-analytical to the point of absurdity. His take, you can be sure, is always going to be different. Although after doing 50+ shows with him, I can usually predict it.

I have been wondering if Bruce's archive is mainly Watts era stuff? We've had a lot of 83-5 and not much 70s so far. I am going to try to watch MX vs. Fantastics when I get a chance. This week has sucked in terms of time for me.

How much of that is down to Inoki's personal legend? I will say, though, that I see Riki Choshu talked up as a great booker a lot and have yet to watch through most of NJPW. It's my next big "to do".

I'm taking Junior, obviously. VKM. Mr. McMahon. Vinnie Mac. I'd like to flesh it out. Very interested to see what this thread will produce and if there will be any consensus.

If Jumbo worked every match like that, maybe, but here he was basically throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Funk to try to put him away. It's better to think of this in terms of like a Hogan vs. Ultimate Warrior deal than as a babyface vs. heel match. It's Baba's goldenboy who is ramping up to be ace (him and Baba more like 1a and 1b) vs. International Superstar / Movie Icon / Most over act in the promotion Terry Funk. There's no two ways about it though: All Japan is spotty, and from what I've seen, always was -- even Baba vs. Brisco is "spotty". But you know me, I love suplexes. But generally, the bombs are built to and reprsent an escalation of violence as they do in all those Billy Robinson matches I love so much. From what I've seen of Angle, he makes the bombs feel more like confetti. Whereas in a match like this with Funk selling the shit out of everything, you can't say Jumbo's bombs didn't register. But I'm not arguing for you to rate the match higher or anything. I'm high on the style, which should be obvious by now, it resonnates with me and these are two of my top 5 all-time workers. Plenty of instances where I am less keen on a style and less keen on the workers involved and give lower ratings to matches others are very high on. It happens.

Baba's key strengths as a booker were patience and sticking to something he'd already set his mind on. This was very good for CREATING STARS, making wins and losses count for something, and producing long-term rivalries. If I was to do a best booker / promoter list right now it would be something like: 1. Vince Jr. 2. Giant Baba 3. Vince Sr. 4. Bill Watts 5. Paul Heyman Baba and Vince Sr are comparible in a lot of ways in that both had a system and really stuck to it and were both 100% men of their word. Watts is the best pure storyteller, and also the best for putting heat on his heels to make payoffs really mean something. Vince Sr. probably the best at executing angles when he did do them (every single one we've seen on Titans has been PERFECT). Heyman the best for getting the most out of limited talent. Vince Jr. the best at crafting recognisable and marketable identities which sell tickets and "postcard moments" you remember forever. I don't really see any others coming into the conversation, unless someone lived to watch all of Eddie Graham's Florida or Shire's SF territory and can tell us about it.

One thing I'll say from watching a lot of 70s and early 80s is that Baba went to the double count out an awful lot with his finishes.

I may need to get a caretaker booker in for a while, been snowed under recently. I know my plans for months, but actually finding the time to put pen to paper has been challenging while I'm trying to write this book. I was able to do reviews of the 90s/00s stuff cos I went back to my parents, where I had only my iPad with me. If anyone is interested in coming in to write the TV and big shows for the next few weeks (about 3-4 weeks including the last two which are overdue), let me know. I have a general direction but execution would be up to you. Would also welcome another promoter coming in and doing it -- a la Jerry Jarrett coming in to caretkaer when Vince was doing the steroids trial. I don't want to fall too far behind. I am also "around" and can even provide a skeleton but getting the spare hour or so needed to get it all down and posted is tough at the mo.

From what I listened to (about half), they were not nicey nice. Conrad colder than Ric was. Flair mainly just played up the fact that he wasn't responsible for the death of WCW. Mostly though, they just let him rant. The only bit that is even close to conflict is where Flair says that success in the 90s was because of the stacked roster (and draws the analogy to 80s NWA) and Russo maintains that it was down to creative. Flair really doesn't agree with him but doesn't start arguing. Apart from Bret, this was the guy where you could tell these two aren't IRL buddies the most. I would skip this one though, Russo really is the shits. I think he was a lot better on Austin.

I tapped out, Russo was the drizzling shits. Same old crap he's been pushing for a decade.

I've enjoyed every single guests including Madden and Pritchard. Will check out and report back.

Yes, but Terry Funk in 1980 All Japan is like, I dunno, Hulk Hogan in 1985 WWF. He's not dropping falls with any ease or at all.

Falls in two out of three fall matches that aren't the third fall are a misnomer in any era, same as an elimination in a Survivor Series. Normal rules don't apply so even a basic bodyslam or a punch could lead to a fall.