JerryvonKramer

To be fair that was a joke.

Yeah but in the same promotion and at the same time you have teams like Doc and Gordy or Kroffat and Furnas who were "proper" tag teams, not two guys who happen to be buddies. Counting Jumbo and Taue is a bit like counting Hogan and Beefcake or Hogan and JYD. Okay, they might have tagged together with a bit more regularity, but it's the same principle.

The inevitable question now is: what do you make of the 79 match?

Cheers, I will take a look soon, after Cena, Angle is the next "modern guy" I'll be looking at. I remember liking Angle back in the day, but preferred three Is nerdy Kurt to "mouth shield" Kurt.

Can you point to any examples Bill?

That's fucking retarded.

Are they really having the IC ladder match go seven ways?

Sorry guys but this is all a bit unspecific and general. Can you point to exactly what Angle does that makes him good / bad? Like actual examples?

I have a hard time thinking of AJ combinations as proper tag teams. I mean you could just as easily put Jumbo and Fuchi.

I do think Jetlag raises some very good points here. But one thing they do overlook is that Dory could work brawls and had a mean European Uppercut. A lot of my highest rated Dory matches aren't techinical masterpieces, but moments when "the ice melts" and he starts to fight. I also think that the analysis of the way he changes position every twenty seconds almost like he's wrestling himself is interesting. I have seen it as Dory working preemptive counters: countering the counter before it happens, but I'll certainly look out for this when I wrap up on him. I also think the context thing of not knowing if you're five minutes in or thirty minutes in is really incisive and I'll look out for this too. Dory's case to an extent has to lean on Great Match Theory. As in, he's in too many great matches to ignore. And I don't agree that anyone could have stepped into his spot in the Funk tags. Not only in terms of being the perfect anti-Terry, ice to his fire, but also in terms of what he brought to the table himself. Again, this is better demonstrated in matches worked more as brawls or sprints than longer ones where he slows things down to work holds. The thing that interests me most about the post above is that he's suggesting that Dory lacks one thing that you'd almost take for granted from him: psychology. It's an interesting point that I need to think about. My criticisms of his psychology have been that he often works too strong and isn't very giving to his opponent. So the narrative arch of most matches is similar "Dory has out thought and out wrestled his opponent". I think I watched something like 30 matches without seeing him eat a single pinfall. So similar to my criticisms of Backlund, I just think Dory is a better wrestler than Backlund and has better matches than him. But the idea that his mat work is aimless and doesn't really tell any story is something I've not seen -- and believe me I'd be down on that if I thought it was true. I still have some way to go, and this has given me stuff to look out for.

Here is a genuine question that I'd love someone to explain for me. Kurt Angle has been criticised for being "go go go", but how is that different from the All Japan style which is worked at a fast pace with lots of bombs and offense in general? What I'd love is for someone to break down for me what each of the four pillars has as a worker over Angle WITHOUT leaning on Great Matches. That is: what do each of them do WITHIN matches that puts them over a guy like Angle? This might appear rudimentary to a lot of people, but I think a lot of others would be interested to see it fleshed out.

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-boys-play-71-clash-of-the-champions-18/ Chad and Parv march on into the glory days of 1992 for Clash of the Champions 18 where it's all change at the top for WCW: [0:15:11] Wrestling Observer roundup: bumper crop of the Meltzers as Luger's contract runs out, Jesse Ventura signs!, Evil Jim Herd finally resigns and the legendary lawyer Kip Allen Frey starts his regime. [1:16:39] Review of Clash of the Champions 18: K. Allen Frey's workrate bonus, ranking the Freebird's new video against Black Scorpion and Oz, assessing Ventura's value, the Dangerous Alliance and Rick Rude's selling of the inverted atomic drop! [2:18:27] End of the Show awards and Question for the Listeners: How much do you value commentary? Also be sure to check out MattD’s companion piece discussing the commentary situation here: http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-boys-play-the-column-beyond-worth-every-penny/

Seems like Ole used sub-bookers quite a bit over the years. There's also a guy called Ron West who was around in the 70s. Kris, a timeline of all bookers for all the territories, would be an immensely valuable project just to have as a resource. Just GCW and Crockett would be a start. Reckon a few of us could hash that out?

Great show Kris. I can't remember it exactly now, but when we did the GCW Titans shows, I worked out the timeline of the bookers. They had a series of very short runs. It's something like: Ernie Ladd in 1979 (under Ole) Ole in 1980 Watts / Buck Robley for 8 weeks in late 80 (booking UWF same time) Robert Fuller in 81 George Scott actually had a little run in here in 81 after Fuller Ole Anderson from late 81 till the end (booking Crockett at same time until Dory in 82-3)

That somewhat oversells what Backlund did though because in actuality what he was doing was a version of how Dory Funk Jr. worked as NWA champ. Dory had much better psychology than Backlund, was better on the mat, better at working counters, and a lot of the time had better opponents, but if you read my reviews of his NWA title defenses that we have on tape (or in fact of later Dory), you'll see many of the same criticisms that I make of Backlund apply. Dory also worked pretty strong and didn't show much vulnerability. From what I've seen, this was not how Thesz worked. Jack Brisco worked from underneath, as did subsequent NWA champs. But Dory worked from on top. Apparently Vince Sr. wanted a version of Brisco when he brought in Backlund, but what he ended up getting was a version of Dory. The key differences, aside from the psychology, is context. Dory was put in positions to work mat classics, Backlund was often put against big men. And when Backlund does work longer mat-based matches he doesn't have a lot of ideas (see vs Valenteine, which is a match I don't enjoy but which some people inexplicably love despite a legit 30-minute headlock spot which we know was worked because Greg got blown up inside the first five minutes). Backlund lacks Dory's smoothness in transitions and counters, "lacks imagination" as I've said. But my point is that the narrative was not new.

I would like to request that pointless trolling of Dory Jr. should stop.

You can name 49 better teams than the Funks?

Backlund had a formula though, it just wasn't the standard one. Seahawks vs. Broncos wouldn't have been so remarkable as a narrative if the Seahawks steamrollered every team they faced, which I know they didn't that year or any year. Also, I did say that Backlund has a shot at being 90-100 in my list. I still have to see how it all shakes out -- certain performances and matches are hard to overlook (vs. Patera, Texas Death Match, for example) -- but the trajectory has been that the more I see of him the less I think of him. And he's partly responsible for the current Titans detour into Mid-Atlantic.

There is an editor than can be used to fix whatever you want, but since I've started it would feel like "cheating" now.

I've said this before though, Mick, but if you look back through the Observors and Torches through history, you'll see that the smart community is always in a semi-permanent state of disgruntlement about something or other. Is it possible that you and your mates in 98 weren't "smart" in that sense? And that more fans now, especially those who go on twitter and to live shows, think that they are "smart"?

It makes the narrative of a lot of the matches the same and his work quite one-dimensional, that's what is wrong with it. It also robs matches of the natural drama arch of "the comeback", which guys like Lawler, Hogan, Pedro and Bruno made their babyface careers on because Backlund can't come back from being on top for the whole match. Backlund matches have a habit of ending with a wimper. Flash roll-up pin, him just walking out of the door of a cage match, him cutting off the heel's first attempt at offense for literally the 7th time and hitting the atomic drop for 1,2,3, etc. It's difficult to create drama if you never feel the hero is in real danger. It's Superman minus the threat of kryptonite. I know people criticise me for thinking that there's only one way to do psychology, but the idea of a babyface champ dominating all comers is about the least compelling narrative I can think of for all those reasons. Especially when he's not really a "monster" babyface, but a guy who works headlocks and arm wrenches. Goldberg's streak was a completely different ball game and confuses the issue a lot, so let's leave that to one side. Backlund gets a big rub within the community because a lot of the criticisms levelled at him over the years by guys like Larry Matysik and Meltzer over the years simply aren't true: he was over, he did have a certain charisma, he did draw, he wasn't "boring" (in the sense that he did work quite an action-orientated style). And so there is a will there, especially among more revisionist minded members of the community, to try to "rescue" Backlund from the bad old received opinions. Similar to how the idea that Michael Hayes or Ron Garvin or Lex Luger were bad workers have been overturned. And I get that and in some respects support that. He's also helped by the fact that Vince more or less erased him from history and there's a sense of uncovering and rediscovering pre-Hogan history. I get that too, I started Titans of Wrestling. But the will to rescue Backlund goes too far and is blind to his shortcomings as a performer -- just in my opinion. But, hell, what do I know, I'm that chump who still thinks Ted DiBiase's a great worker. I also think that some people just like to wind me up and can see the problems I point to in Backlund's work, but won't admit it because they enjoy it when I get riled up.

I'm a bit puzzled why they've underrated Vince Sr's WWF so much, because the guys who put the Death of the Territories mod clearly know their stuff, but I've got a feeling it's because of game balancing issues (i.e. if they set WWF as it really was, Vince would curb-stomp everyone every time). Just a theory, but I think "B-" in the North East is not an accurate reflection of the territory in 83. UNLESS, they are going with the narrative of the crowds turning on Backlund or whatever, even then it was B+ at the very least, if not higher. This is one of the reasons the crowds haven't been very hot and I had to stop running MSG. Whatever the case, I can't stop now, just makes things more of a challenge. Just wait till I get to cult and get cable, you people will see what booking is about! Ha ha.

This is what I've been trying to tell people, I'll continue to get big leagued till I get to "cult". I actually think the designers of the mod significantly underestimated how big Vince Sr's promotion was. Which means, I think, that I'm more up against it than they would have been in 83.

Spirios Arion is semi retired and won't come, I tried week 1. Also, this thread is not the best place to debate it but the Pillman in 90 comparison sells Ted short. He was Pillman in 79-80. By 83, he was already a bigger star. A much bigger star actually.