JerryvonKramer

Incidentally, the "82" I flung out there wasn't arbitrary, it was because the last Flair match I was actually watched was from 82 (see here): Dory Funk Jr and Ken Patera vs. Ric Flair and Crusher Blackwell (7/4/82) This like the 78 stuff I mentioned was from St. Louis, and again I was struck by just how much Flair was like the Slick Rick from 85 onwards. Now I realise that that's St. Louis and it could just be in a bubble, but I'm sure I've seen him in that mode in Mid-Atlantic around 81-2 as well. And definitely he had that character in early 80s GCW. ----- I'd actually love any and all guys who have watched Flair to weigh in on this because piecing together his evolution is a great topic. And it might just rescue this thread from the shit we've had on the previous 6 pages!

I was thinking more in terms of his character than anything else. Care to go into specifics OJ, because this is a very interesting topic for me. I have talked in the past about "Minnesota Flair" and "Carolinas Flair". Starrcade 83 hushed-voiced family-man serious Flair is the former. "Slick Rick" in the shades is the latter. I had wondered when Flair "became" the Flair we all know and love. Now when I saw Flair in St. Louis from 1978, I was struck by just how much he was *that* Flair. He had the strut. He had the talk. He had a lot of the mannerisms down. It seemed to me that Flair had already become "Slick Rick" at that point. When he becomes NWA Champ in 81, I'm not sure how he played it. But by the Race feud in 83 he's "Minnesota Flair". It's not even as easy as saying that one was face and the other was heel because even in 1984 in the feud with Dusty, Flair was more the "Minnesota Flair" type character. He morphs back into Slick Rick some time after that. I'd love to see what you think the trajectory is OJ.

Alright, I'll answer this without reading any replies: It's action and movement. Everything from delivering or receiving a suplex to (for example) Flair flipping over the turnbuckle running across to the next turnbuckle and being slammed off the top. Big bumps count as "workrate" to me. When Ricky Steamboat takes a punch and flings himself halfway across the ring. When Ricky Morton is working a fifteen minute FIP sequence and pinballing around the ring for the heels. It's all workrate. Yes "to a point". Like a lot of people here, I value good storytelling and to me workrate without a compelling narrative around it isn't all that interesting. However, I also really value action and movement. I don't like things to feel too static. If I get the impression that a match is mostly guys lying around on the mat to kill time, I'll be generally down on it. I do like matwork, but I like it worked brutally -- I want it to have lots of struggle, and to look painful. I like it when guys throw nasty little punches even while they are in a hold. Lou Thesz did this a lot in that match with Verne Gagne, as did Billy Robinson in general. Dory Funk Jr is good on the mat in terms of positioning his weight and making it look painful. But despite all that, I still love a suplex just for its own sake. I love watching a nice 10-minute heel heat sequence where a guy might start with a few more basic moves but starts working through his offensive arsenal until he's hitting the bombs. I even love a bombfest that doesn't have much structure (think Luger/ Sting vs. Steiners or Rick Martel vs. Harley Race from AWA) if it kind of makes sense for the match to be like that. I'm willing to sacrifice some story for some cool action. However, I do draw the line at the stereotypical spotty indie style or what Will calls "go go go". I don't like matches to be too "your turn, my turn". I don't like it when guys follow up a suplex with just another suplex (better to stomp, drop an elbow, go for a cover, or something). I don't like it when high spots lose their impact and just become transitional moves because the guys barely pause to sell them or because they are just trying to get their shit in. I don't like "flash" for its own sake. And all of this stuff, I think, is enough of a defense against the charge that some might make of me as being a "spot monkey" sort of fan. I'm not one of those at all. But I do fucking love a suplex. Kind of said it all above. But it's not an easy thing as there are all sorts of different matches. I value: - Storytelling - Structure - Character work - Connection between wrestler and the crowd - "Workrate" - i.e. action, suplexes - Selling - i.e. how well the guys make the moves look painful - Intensity / level of brutality - I like wrestling to be violent if possible Those are the things I'll always look for. I think PWO is a place where that happened some time ago. And yes, at one point it was stupid. Scott Keith de facto giving Earthquake matches DUD because John Tenta was fat. Keith hated the fat guys because he perceived of them all having zero workrate. Workrate is just one aspect of wrestling, and guys can still be great workers without having a ton of it. I have a different journey from many guys on this forum. I really rejected the "smart wrestling culture" from the off. I decided that I liked wrestling first and foremost as kitsch. This is why I have Sean Mooney as my avatar. I believed that reducing wrestling to this endless search for "workrate" missed something that was fundamentally at the heart of it. I still believe that, and I think the same is true if you simply replace workrate with "psychology" or "storytelling". It's about more than just those things. I think people who think it's only about either of those things strip the joy, heart and soul out of wrestling. Look at this picture: To me, wrestling is just as much about the individual elements you see there as it is about anything else. Don't think I need to say any more.

I've seen Flair in St. Louis from around 1978, he works a little angle with DiBiase. It's on the Larry Matysik St. Louis Classics footage, but has probably been uploaded. Flair in 78 is pretty much Flair from 82.

Dory Funk Jr and Terry Funk

I don't know about records, but when I see "legitimately strong" Bob Backlund is the first name that springs to mind.

Just speaking for myself: King Tonga, Masked Superstar, and Sheik Adnan Kaissey vs. Crusher Blackwell and Sgt. Slaughter (Cage Match) (4/21/85) My rating: ****3/4 / A Da Crusher and Greg Gagne vs. Crusher Blackwell and Sheik Adnan Kaissey (Cage Match) (3/25/84) My rating: ****1/2 / A- Stan Hansen vs. Crusher Blackwell (6/28/86) My rating: ****1/2 / A- Crusher Blackwell & Ken Patera vs. High Flyers (11/24/83) My rating: **** / B+ Crusher Blackwell & Sheik Adnan Kaissey vs. Baron Von Raschke & Mad Dog Vachon (Taped Fist Match) (3/13/83) My rating: **** / B+ Crusher Blackwell vs. Mad Dog Vachon (Algerian Death Match) (5/22/83) My rating: **** / B+ Col. Debeers vs. Jerry Blackwell (Ladder Match) (11/27/86) My rating: **** / B+

Dave Meltzer saw him as one of the best workers in the world, and certainly in the US, for almost a decade, so that's why he was a fiat. Since he put together the list with Dave, if jdw is around he could probably give you the exact answer. I'd put money on it being that though. Factor in main eventing in GCW, Mid-South and WWF plus a big, big-time angle with Hogan and big-time gimmick, plus "St. Louis credentials" and tagging with Hansen in All Japan, and it's a no-brainer.

It is interesting to me, and I do understand why you do it. However, not every wrestler is great because they are necessarily the smartest worker. I'll say it: I don't think Flair was ever the smartest wrestler. It's no real surprise that he wasn't able to work around his limitations like a Giant Baba was able to. Giant Baba was probably twice as smart as Flair. I've talked about it before, Flair is all about instinct, working on the fly, feeling the crowd and knowing what to do intuitively. He's not a "Matt D worker", never was and never will be. He's making it up as he goes along for the best part. Not every thing he does is going to be logical. Some stuff is just to pop the crowd after a quiet spell. Some stuff is just to eat up time. If ALL you value in wrestling is "working smart" then maybe Giant Baba should be your top 5 guy. Flair's not your man. He feels his way through matches rather than thinks through them. But he can still have matches in the 4.5-5-star range with practically anyone from Steamboat to Jumbo to Ron Garvin to Kerry Von Erich or anyone else. I sometimes just wonder if you are so concerned with "smartness" that you might even overlook the exceptional work in matches like that. I'm not having a go, but there are days when I wonder if you might genuinely rank Andre in 1989 above Flair in 1989 just because of the things you look for. It's possible sometimes to miss the woods for the trees.

I don't really recall guys bringing up the careers of guys like Ricky Morton or Greg Valentine working indies in the 00s and 10s. I didn't see anyone talk about Morton's run with the NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship title from earlier this year. No one talked about botch-y late Vader. Even in recent discussion about Ron Garvin, no one talked about how he fell off a cliff in late 90-1. It seems like since Flair is the man, he has to be subjected to extra special scrutiny. How about someone instead trying to demonstrate that the other contenders can even go toe-to-toe with Flair's volume of great matches and performances before trying to pull down his career based on his old-man years? It shouldn't be a disadvantage to be the frontrunner and "man to beat" in a thing like this, but at the moment it feels like it is for him.

Out of interest, is anyone going to bother to consider matches that Terry Funk has had aged almost 70 with his brother looking like the Cryptkeeper? Or does Flair only get this because he happened to be doing it on WWE TV?

If we must, fine.

Hayes and Gordy Gordy and Roberts Hayes and Garvin

No. Because people peak at different times. It's entirely possible for example that Bock was better in the 80s than he was in the 70s. We don't know for sure until we see a good sampling for Bock in the 70s, but it's possible. It's also possible that Bock is a strange case of someone who simply doesn't have a post-peak. Well, great for him. But I don't see why this should necessarily be a knock on guys who do have one. Bock is a freak of nature, because he seemed to be able to bump around like a 25-year old when he was in his 50s. Flair didn't work a style that was going to see him well into old age. He was all-action, he thought on his feet a lot of the time, he relied on his stamina and workrate to see him through. So, yes, by the time he's 50 a lot of his key tools are taken away -- because unlike Bock he wasn't able to keep going. I don't see how any of it detracts from Flair's career before that. Okay fine, but then it becomes a case of "well, do you have the goods to even get to the tiebreaker with Flair?" And let's say someone does. How does one call it? Do you go back to 1978 and bring in extra Steamboat matches? Do you go to the HBK match? Or the times when he was tagging with Batista and actually working pretty smart? Let's say it's a theoretical someone whose peak is "tied" with Flair's and then he's got nothing else because he retired ... what do you do? Is Flair's post-peak an overall plus or minus? Well?

He really isn't. In fact, Brando isn't even punished for the shit he did during his supposed peak. More than any other actor he more or less gets a bye for being in loads of mediocre stuff on the strength of a handful of phenomenal performances (Streetcar, On the Waterfront, Godfather, possibly Last Tango if you rate that). Brando is just about the worst example you might have used. No one is bringing up The Island of Dr. Moreau or The Score as evidence of him not being the GOAT. Those who push for Brando as GOAT don't tend to do it on overall body of work, they argue along the lines of raw natural talent. I am very confused as to why you, of all people, are adopting this line. Last week, it was all about how you only need so many Bock matches to show you that he's a great worker, and that lets you know how good he is overall. But now with Flair you want him to be consistent for his whole career including his post-peak? I don't get it. --------- I understand both points of view on this by the way. Position A is something like: - Robert De Niro cemented his reputation as an all-timer back in 1990 and no matter what else he does, his case is already made, he can only add to it. Position B is: - Robert De Niro might have made many fine performances in the 70s and 80s but since about 1995, he's coasted and made an awful lot of shit, and we're now at the point where he has almost 20 years of being on uninspired autopilot. This has to be a knock on his GOAT case. Position A makes the argument "from peak performance". Position B makes the argument "from overall body of work". What I don't understand is Matt D -- a guy who has consistently argued from neither of those positions but from something like "overall ability" (which would be the line Brando advocates would tow) -- now switching to insist on overall body of work. Makes no sense. ------- I struggle with this question. I get the "overall body of work" argument, but at the same time, you make it an advantage to die early or retire. If Flair dies in 1993, he has a better career than if he retired when he did? Really? If De Niro dies in 1995, he has a better career than he does now? Seems arse-backwards to say that to me.

The rate of "Classics" being released was curbed because Johnny complained about them.

After I am done with Dory Funk Jr, I will switch focus to Harley Race. I already started reviewing his matches here. So far he's had very disappointing matches (e.g. against Steamboat) and very good ones including: vs. Terry Funk. (JIP – 2/6/77) My rating: **** / B+ vs. Jumbo Tsuruta. (6/11/77) My rating: ****1/2 / A- vs. Giant Baba. (10/31/79) My rating: ****1/2 / A- From the AWA set there is also: vs. Rick Martel (4/20/86) My rating: ****1/2 / A- A few things: - Race is generally not typical of the era because he worked an all-action style. That means big bumping and big bombs. He's not your typical 70s mat-based wrestler. He has more in common with Kurt Angle than with any other 70s star I can think of. - As a result, I don't know what you mean by "wasn't much of an athlete". Sure, the only six-pack he ever had was a six-pack of beer, but Harley pinballed about almost as much as a Mr. Perfect. He routinely worked hour broadways. He worked his arse off. This strikes me as an extremely shallow comment. What you mean is "he didn't have a nice body". - Harley worked as NWA champ similarly to Flair, only I'd say on occasion he was MORE a bitch champ than Flair was in that he'd give the opponent 90% of the match (see vs. Backlund, vs. Steamboat). This is the weirdest thing to me about him, because he has a tough guy image but worked like a total bitch. It's even weirder when you consider the fact that Harley is probably a better offensive wrestler than Flair -- he has more bombs in his locker, but often he doesn't use them. - From my limited sampling in the 70s so far, he seemed like he was a different proposition in Japan from working in other territories. - There is a LOT of Harley to get through, much more than Dory or Jack Brisco or even 70s Terry Funk. For whatever reason, we just have more of him. I will plow through it eventually and encourage others to check out some of it too, but until that time I don't think we can write him off.

God, if I must. Let's try to keep an open mind then. On the one hand there was quite a lot of intensity here. The kicks in particular seem pretty stiff, and the whole thing was heated. On the other hand, I'm an insomniac and this match seems to have cured me because I can't keep my eyes open and am off to bed. Was bored rigid for most of it -- which ever way you dress it up, a half crab is still just a half crab. I will admit that I enjoyed the moments of explosive fisticuffs, especially in the finishing stretch. And when the German suplex hit it was with so much struggle and had been so fought for that it felt like a real high spot. Pretty good underdog story told as well. B-

Again, this looks totally unmissable. I'm actually pretty excited to see it. I can only imagine what the prospect of this match must have felt like to a Japanese fan at this time. Hogan comes down and he's all business. No showboating, nothing: he just wants to wrestle. He's come to fight. This is as good a match from Hogan as I can recall seeing. He was so aggressive and I think it says something that, in Japan, he worked a Hansen match rather than asking Hansen to work a Hogan match. Really good. And up there with the best of 1990 so far. B+

Couldn't possibly skip on this. I love Tenryu's look at bemusement at seeing Macho and Sherri in front of him. It's like the circus has come to town. He slaps the shit out of Savage to start and is fired up like mad. Amazing to see how much Sherri got this Japanese crowd riled up. And Savage was tremendous in this setting. This match has got to be a feather in the caps of both guys. It's definitely been on of the ones I've enjoyed most from 1990 so far. B+, 5 minutes more and it would be threatening to go higher. Loved it. Sherri was also great here.

This is fucking brilliant! I spent the first 2-3 minutes thinking to myself "what the ... this is the SAME Dragon Master from WCW?!!" I love Dragon Master's "random 80s dude in a checkered shirt" partner with his little moustache. He looks like he's just walked in after a longish shift. The brawling between Tarzan and Dragon Master at the start is wild and the pace doesn't let up. The kicks from Kurisu in those boots are sick. Onita was crazy good here as well and I look forward to more of him if he's always this good. As good a brawl as I can remember seeing. Really excellent, and probably my MOTY so far. A- Awesome.

DISC 7 Robert Fuller Interview (USWA 3/21/90) Okay promo Eddie Gilbert vs. Cactus Jack (Power Hour 3/23/90) The opposite of economic wrestling. C Ric Flair Interview (Power Hour 3/23/90) Get your opponent over, get yourself over, get the belt over. Steve Austin vs. Chris Adams (No Referee) (USWA TX 3/23/90) These two seem stuck in a time loop. Young Austin's not bad. C+ Angel Azteca vs. El Dandy (EMLL 3/23/90) Who am I to doubt March 1990? B Jerry Estrada vs. El Satanico (Hair Match) (EMLL 3/23/90) Work seemed to lack urgency and brutality to me, not to mention crispness in execution. Some big bumps and bombs but nothing special. Some spots were completely senseless without rhyme or reason (e.g. at one point Estrada just jumps off the top rope face first onto the mat for no apparent purpose). Rather disappointing all-in-all, expected more. Even the post-match was disappointing. B Jesse Ventura Opening (Superstars 3/24/90) This is positively ridiculous. Ultimate Warrior + Hulk Hogan Promos (Superstars 3/24/90) God, how many more of these? Ole Anderson & Minnesota Wrecking Crew II Interview (WWW 3/24/90) [skip] Ric Flair vs. Ricky Morton (WWW 3/24/90) [skip] Sting Interview (WCWSN 3/24/90) [skip] Midnight Express vs. Zan Panzer & Bob Cook (WCWSN 3/24/90) [skip] Eric Embry + Devastation Inc (USWA TX 3/24/90) Love watching heel beatdowns. Wish Pringle had been Oliver Humperdink here, he needs to be pummelled like this. ------------ At this time, I have to make an executive decision and it is this: in light of the GOAT project, I need to bee-line to the best matches and to workers who are of particular interest. I think it's going to take me much too long to watch everything given that I have the whole decade to come. I'll use the top 100s of Chad and Charles as general guidelines, but will also check out stuff that seems of interest. As a result I'm going to have to skip around a bit more -- bit painful because I'm a completist, but time is a real factor. Since this thread has revealed the "sort by start date" function, which I didn't know about, I'm going to abandon it and go back to posting in individual threads. I guess people could reccommend some more under-the-radar stuff from after March that didn't make either Chad or Charles's top 25s.

I would second the notion of watching the tags vs. Choshu and Yatsu before the Tenryu feud. I think the 89 match is made so much more special if you understand some of the history and context between the two guys.

Yatsu is almost certainly making my list. One of my favourite guys from 80s All Japan, I'm looking forward to seeing him in early 80s New Japan. He has been good in early 80s WWF too. I'm a sucker for high artillery offense and Yatsu is a human suplex machine. He brings so much to those Choshu tags. I am still undecided on what to do about post-peaks. How far do you hold them against guys? Longevity of peak is a consideration for me, I'm not sure if "quality of work in post-peak" is one. Incidentally, I don't see Bockwinkel as having a post-peak at all.

1. Complete overview of 70s NWA champions (Dory, Harley, Brisco) - I am doing this both to give them their due and to try to point people towards anything they simply must check out. There is a *shitload* of Harley from the 70s. 2. Finish 80s sets - realistic 3. Finish 90s Yearbooks - since I have so far to go on this, I might have to start bee-lining to essential matches. The TOP priority for 90s are: * The pimped All Japan - this is a very high priority * Lucha - I guess not just for 90s but in general * Revisiting Attitude era - something I'm not really looking forward to 4. 00s and 10s indies and majors worldwide This is my major blind spot and to be honest something I have a very limited amount of interest in. However, I will need to do something, just to try to do some due diligence. I will likely need some help and guidance here on everyone from Angle to Daniel Bryan. 5. Brush up on key guys that I have a disposition towards really liking. For example, William Regal is in this boat.