JerryvonKramer

I agree, use keepvid.com for this purpose. I got all of the Cornette tapes while they were up. Stick me in the pro-Russ Davis camp too.

Absolutely I do. To the point where I'm considering if Ted DiBiase will even make my top 100. Or guys I've loved for years like Arn Anderson or Rick Rude. I think a modicum of objectivity is important.

I didn't know him, but this is a sad loss. I think anyone who has spent any time at all doing research on historical stuff will have come across his work in some shape or form. The results are an invaluable resource. Seems so sudden when he was posting just the other day.

I'll have him above Morton because he has much cooler offense, worked great as both the junior and senior member of the team, and was surprisingly effective as a face. And arguably had a better singles run. He also had better runs with OTHER teams: Dangerous Alliance, Blue Bloods, etc. I think Eaton has more to him than Morton all around.

https://soundcloud.com/jerryvonkramer/titans-xtra-chicago-film-archives-gagne-thesz All four Titans reunite to watch Haystack Calhoun vs. Buddy Rogers (04/14/1961) and Verne Gagne vs. Lou Thesz (01/25/52) and generally mark out like school girls about the 50s footage recently uploaded by the Chicago Film Archives.

I'm kinda torn on this because I do understand the approach you're taking. And I am generally in favour of an "holistic" look at someone. But ... doesn't it ultimately just end up with a set of Top Trump-type stats? You break down the aspects of work and give a rating out of ten in each one and the guy with the highest average or most 9s and 10s wins. That's essentially what you're proposing. I don't think it can work like that. When I think of real sports and think of the "best players" according to stats you might allocate like that, they aren't always the ones with the best careers. The talent doesn't always translate into output. Someone (let's say Bobby Eaton) might outscore Flair in every area, but the fact remains that he didn't have the career that Flair did or even one that is comparable in terms of numbers of great matches. If you make it a simple scorecard exercise, maybe someone like Barry Windham comes out as GOAT. I mean what wasn't he good at? Fact remains, Windham's career wasn't all that. I'm just not sure you can remove the context as much as you're saying and be left with a list that even looks meaningful.

I like the idea of making a pre-1980s category just so that era, slept on in general even among most people here, will get a fair shake. I don't think we need period categorization after 1980 because I don't think a lot of the pimped stuff after then is going to need any extra help to get a fair shake. If there's a "Europe" category, that will give slept on stuff that OJ talks about a fairer shake. Otherwise, I think 80s matches should duke it out with 00s matches etc.

@ Matt D - In essence, it could be. That is, Bock might be a better allround worker, but Flair just has so many more great matches in his locker that it's almost not a fair contest. To draw a really weird analogy that might possibly be lost on people, there's little doubt among the hip-hop heads that GZA is the best all-around rapper in the Wu-Tang Clan, but he's only really got 1 great album and then 1-2 more quite good ones. Ghostface Killah technically is maybe number 5 or 6 best rapper in the Clan but he's got lots of great albums to his name now and so you'll see GFK in GOAT debates much more than GZA or a guy like Method Man who has wonderful flow but a grand total of zero great albums to his name. When talking GOAT in any field it's about both ability AND output. Hope this makes sense Matt.

The Flair argument is as much on quantity as it is on quality. It's quantity of quality.

This. To be the man, you got to beat the man.

Welcome to use PWO-PTBN feed for this purpose. I'm not very good at the live party type shows though, so probably wouldn't be on them. Will probably drop shows (i.e. ones with pre-planned notes etc.) on Harley Race and Dory Funk Jr eventually, once I've got through all the footage.

As far as I know, what was around before was dubbed with Japanese commentary from the Encyclopedia of Pro Wrestling set (which I have). The VQ is nothing like this though, and of course a lot of this has original announcing. There are also quite a few matches uploaded that aren't on that set. --- Also, I really object to this idea that I don't like any matwork or guys working holds. It's just not true. I have many hours of audio reviews of me praising matwork, and a thread on Dory Funk Jr matches in which I've commented on smooth matwork many times. I just 1) don't think Backlund is very interesting on the mat and 2) don't care at all for UWF shoot style and 3) do like a suplex or two. I will not countenance casual swipes!

I think one thing that I have in common with Matt is that I really want to get the measure of a guy by seeing him in a variety of different situations -- not JUST the hyped matches, but what's he doing on a "rainy Saturday"? What are his TV matches like? How does he work gimmick matches? What's a typical match of his like? I skew more towards "total package" than "great matches" when assessing guys, and you can't get a measure of it unless you see a bit of everything. In other words, I don't just want the greatest hits, you need those album tracks. Now, whatever Loss says, reading his comments on Bret Hart, I know deep down he's the same.

One of my favourite moments recording on a show ever, was when I had the temerity to compare Baron Scicluna's foreign-object stuff to Lawler. Pete almost bit my head off.

Genuinely exciting. Hans Schmidt in his prime. Young Sheik. Thesz vs. Rogers. Dick the Brusier as a young guy. Haystacks Calhoun. I think Kelly's head might have just exploded.

I won't be voting for Backlund for three interlinked key reasons: 1. Limited 2. Lacking in imagination 3. Poor at generating sympathy during heat segments Backlund was on top for 6 years and during that time got to face a very wide variety of different opponents. Yet, it didn't matter if he was facing Stan Hansen, Harley Race, Sgt. Slaughter, or a guy who was smaller than him, he'd work the same way. Namely, he'd work on top, dominating the heel for the majority of the match through drawn out and repetitive mat-based control segments. If you've seen one Backlund match, you've seen em all. Armwork to start, maybe the "row row row" spot. Heel struggles and tries to fight back. Bob gives them nothing, beats them back down. Heel almost gets a hope spot and maybe gets a few moves in on offense. Bob barely sells them before KILLing the heel with a massive piledriver and maybe a suplex variation. If it's match one, he'll get thrown from the ring for a countout, or cut his head for blood stoppage. If it's match two, it'll be a draw of some kind. If it's match three he goes over. Doesn't really matter, cos whatever the match and whatever the opponent, the basic structure is the same. Only the finish changes. To me, this suggests that ultimately he's a limited worker. Kayfabe Bob is one of the most single-track minded guys ever to step in the ring. He'll get one idea in his head (e.g. "grind headlock" or "wrench arm") and proceed to do that and only that for the next 20 minutes. You might say it's good psychology, which I guess it is, but the problem is that he'll pursue his basic gameplan by going back to the same move again and again and again. It could be a headlock, it could be an armwrench. Bob's plan is not so much to work a bodypart, it's TO USE ONE MOVE over and over again. This belies his lack of imagination. Finally -- and this is the biggest problem for me, because he does have some good matches in his locker, maybe even a few great ones -- he can't sell for shit, and doesn't seem to sell for anyone. Bob seems completely unable to show any sort of vulnerability at all. He's like Superman without the kryptonite Achilles heel. Not only is Kayfabe Bob the most single-track minded wrestler of all time, he's also the most indestructible. He has basically no weaknesses. He isn't just the champ, he's a fucking juggernaut who eats heel challengers for breakfast. He sells for no man. Because dammit, Bob Backlund is the strongest, the fastest, the smartest, the most technically proficient and the toughest! On his worst days, he makes Road Warrior Hawk look generous. And all of this means that he's poor at generating sympathy during heat segments. This is a major knock on him for me. We've seen Bruno generate sympathy much more effectively, and we've seen Hogan do it. That's wrestling ABCs, and I very much doubt we'll be seeing Hogan or Bruno get into the Top 100. So for all of these reasons, I won't be voting for Backlund. He does have great matches to his name, but his general deficiencies are such that he doesn't belong in a Greatest 100 Wrestlers of All-time List. Maybe a greatest 200, but not 100.

Does that mean girls at school would make an active decision: "hmmm, I'm not that pretty, short hair for me then." Really?

That thread isn't the place to debate it, but my view is that if you want a real fight, go and watch UFC or the Olympics. I prefer my pretend fighting with Irish whips in it. And dropkicks. And suplexes. And "selling" in the manner of a Ricky Steamboat or Terry Funk. I have no problem being wedded to that particular vision of pro wrestling, because that's what made me a fan and that's what I'm a fan of. I'm open to other styles, and other things, but that UWF style is so far from what brought me to the dance that it might as well not be pro wrestling. I am really almost philosophically opposed to it. I don't understand what it's trying to achieve or why. I actually hate it, to be honest, I'd go as far as to call it "anti-wrestling". It's more offensive to me than a George Steele match in which he eats the turnbuckle and spends most of the time outside the ring.

What were Koko B. Ware's merch figures like?

There's certainly quite a lot of Pat O'Connor.

Ha ha. Well, I guess I asked for it and might have gone a bit far accusing everyone of bad faith. I do remain totally turned off by the UWF shoot style though. I strongly believe that real fights are boring and since pro wrestling is pretend fighting it has the luxury of being entertaining and fun. That means Irish whips and suplexes and badly coloured tights. "No, let's not do any of that, and pretend at having an actual real fight, and let's make it as boring as one too!" Ultimate Warrior + Hulk Hogan Promo (Superstars 3/10/90) Hogan buries the first five Wrestlemanias. Things are getting Bibical. Was bored by Warrior. Hulk Hogan vs. Dino Bravo (Superstars 3/10/90) Bravo sucks. Earthquake squashes. I hate Warrior. D Midnight Express vs. Brian Pillman & Tom Zenk (WCWSN 3/10/90) [skip] Texas NAWA Wrestling Commercial (USWA TX 3/10/90) ... Jerry Lawler Promo (USWA TX 3/10/90) I didn't think this was a very good promo, despite some good lines. He fumled a lot of lines. Kerry Von Erich + Billy Travis & Terrence Garvin (USWA TX 3/10/90) Like a better looking Lenny from Of Mice and Men. Painful segment and some evidence for why Travis never main evented. Tony Atlas Promo (ICW 3/10/90) Nice curtains Tony. He continues to be surprisingly good on the mic. Effective in this role. Roddy Piper Interview (Challenge 3/11/90) I genuinely hate Piper in the 90s, one of my least favourite guys period. This is shit. Atlantis, Villano III & El Satanico vs. Pirata Morgan, Jerry Estrada & Emilio Charles Jr (EMLL 3/16/90) Prematch profiles are helpful. Find these trios matches hard to follow and seen a fair few of them now. Falls feel anti-climactic. C Louisville Slugger: Ole Anderson (Power Hour 3/16/90) [skip] Steve Austin vs. Chris Adams (Finish Only) (3/16/90) Repeated match? Jesse Ventura Opening (Superstars 3/17/90) Bizarro world Jesse! Ultimate Warrior Promo/Hulk Hogan Promo (Superstars 3/17/90) These keeping getting more and more warped, to the point where you wonder how this went out. It's surreal, but not in a good way. Brother Love: Heenan Family (Superstars 3/17/90) Better than all the Hogan-Warrior promos so far combined. "It could be a giant problem" is great foreshadowing by Vince. Tony Atlas Interview (ICW 3/17/90) We get to see more of those curtains. Atlas was a better promo than both Warrior and Kerry von Erich in 1990. Tony Atlas vs. Atsushi Onita (ICW 3/17/90) Glad we got to see a match! "Hottest promotion of the 1990s" ha ha ha. Onita channels the Great Kubuki circa 1983 with the nerve holds. Thought Atlas acually looked decent. D Randy Savage & Sensational Sherri Interview (Challenge 3/18/90) Sherri's bullying of Saphirre is one of the my favourite things ever. "Peasantsville", ha ha ha. The Trooper, DJ Peterson & Paul Diamond vs. Tully Blanchard & The Destruction Crew (Elimination Match) (AWA 3/18/90) Tully! In an alternative universe where he's one of the Beverley Brothers! Interesting. So weird that he was completely done after this. Stand out head and shoulders here. B- Bret Hart vs. Rick Martel (MSG 3/19/90) *Highlight of this entire disc right here* No, not the match, this: Hillbilly Jim: Say, Lord Alfred, you travelled all around the world, especially in Europe. Where's a good ol' country place for Hillbilly Jim to go over there? Lord Alfred: [after a pause] Well ... er ... to be quite honest, Hillbilly, I don't think there's anywhere you'd fit in. Ha ha ha ha. Love random and unlikely inconsequential exchanges like that. Hillbilly Jim just decides to strike up a bit of small talk. Match: Old MSG ref! NY state commission employee? Vlad in front row. Even by 1990 expectations of both guys, this is disappointing. B- Ultimate Warrior vs. Mr. Perfect (MSG 3/19/90) Old "manager not at ringside" rules for MSG? Nice legsweep by Perfect, who does is best but Warrior is fucking awful. C- March 1990 has not been a very good month for matches so far.

See above for Regal. I wouldn't vote for Malenko.

I should say also that by "meaningful position" I don't simply mean main event. Especially in the PPV era where cards can be built around several matches, guys get more opportunities to be really meaningful. I'd argue that people like Regal or Dustin Rhodes were "meaningful" for large chunks of their careers without ever really being a top top guy. There's value in being positioned as a US or TV champ, for example. I'd still count Pedro as being "meaningful" as late as 1983-4. Just saying that we can't pretend it doesn't matter. When people are no longer being put in meaningful positions but are still active and working, I think it has to be a knock on them -- look at Greg Valentine. I think it's a knock on him that he doesn't do much after 1987 despite another 5+ years working for the big two.

I just think that it seems strange to say "hey, well done, you had 1,000 matches no one gave a shit about, but I liked the way you worked the leg". I also think that when push comes to shove, people will consider card placement. If Tenryu never makes the jump to be a main eventer, he's not talked about like he is today, it's as simple as that. If Terry Funk was doing his stuff in the mid-card for his whole career, I don't believe he'd be a GOAT contender. I can't view matches in a vacuum, and context is, I think, inextricable from the form. Whether we like it or not, card placement changes things. If a guy is working on top of four or five different territories having a variety of different types of matches well, it has to mean more than a guy who stays in one promotion having variations of the same 8-minute midcard TV match for a decade. I think most people if they search their feelings, will factor in that sort of thing, even if only sub-consciously.

For my money, you can't really get into contention merely by being a good mid-card hand. No one is going to be pushing for the Baron Sciclunas of this world -- and if people are thinking of pushing underrated career mid-carders like The Barbarian, it's only because that's what they are familiar with. This may sound elitist, but shit, if this isn't the time to be it, then when is? It's also a double-edged sword. Guys who were still booked in main events late in their careers (think Dick the Bruiser, or the Crusher, or Roddy Piper in WCW, Flair of course) tend to be brutally exposed for their limitations. Whereas guys who have slipped down the card can sort of "hide out" in nothing undercard matches. It can help or hinder the longevity argument, but I think the very fact a promoter still wanted to put the guy in that position says something -- i.e. it says more than the guy who has become a jobber. A clear example of this would be to compare, say, The Funks with a guy like Pedro Morales. The Funks were still "meaningful" in 1987, Pedro meant nothing. I don't see in what world that doesn't count for *something*. I allow for injury, circumstance, bad booking, nepotism and so on to mediate all of that, but the bottom-line is that main event status should and does count for something, especially over a 20+ year career.