JerryvonKramer

See, I think being actively bad is worse than being pointless. The worst you could say of Matsuda was that came off as being irrelevant, the net result is just a blank -- no better for him being there, but also no worse. I think Gary Hart was actively bad in 1989 to the point where he was a real detriment to the product.

I think Tony on Ross came across more or less identically to the Tony we know from years of commentary: sincere, honest, hardworking, a company man, puts his family first, loved the NWA, completely burned out and tapped out by the end of WCW. What really struck me was the lack of any real difference between the real him and his on-air personality. He more or less wore his heart on his sleeve -- on reflection, it's really obvious when he did and didn't care. The story about the "$1 million for a viewer" deal was quite funny. I thought another of the quite revealing things was the story about him crying after leaving the WWF. I guess it says a lot about WCW if the one guy who is completely synonymous with the place says the best year of his career was in New York -- it's weird, Flair says almost exactly the same thing. And I don't think it's because -- as cynics might argue -- they are kissing ass or trying to get a job. I think it's because WWF was a well-run operation and WCW was a shambles.

I really love Tony. I think the stuff about Heenan was revelatory. Has Schiavone ever done a shoot before? I think he was remarkably candid here. Honest about himself too. Never knew he was such a big fan either, but if you think about it came through in his announcing.

Did Monsoon really shit on matches and make out like the match wasn't good? Or was it much more picking up on individual errors? People make mistakes at the highest level in legit sports and sometimes such mistakes make for better matches. It's not like Gorilla was sitting there saying "oh this match is shit and not worth watching". Or was it?

Yeah just a typo Al.

No valets Pete! That's cheating.

There has been a lot of talk in the Gorilla Monsoon thread about how while Mr. Fuji wasn't the greatest manager, or even a good one, he was "not even close" to being the worst manager of the year when Meltzer and co gave those awards out at the time? My question, therefore, is: who was? NOTE: This thread isn't all-time, it's specific to late 80s and early 90s, the time Fuji was active as a manager. To be specific Fuji won the award every single year from 1984 until 1995 with the exception of 1986 when it was (correctly) won by Paul Jones. By my reckoning we can automatically "tier" the top managers of the era as follows: Tier 1 - GOAT contenders Jim Cornette Bobby Heenan Jimmy Hart Fred Blassie Lou Albano Tier 2 - have some sort of rep from various promotions JJ Dillon Paul E. Dangerously Gary Hart [NB. I personally do not rate him] Paul Jones [NB. I personally hate him] Paul Ellering [NB. as above] Percy Pringle / Paul Bearer Slick [margin call] Teddy Long [as above] Sheik Adnan Al-Kaissie Johnny V Skandor Akbar Col. Robert Parker Tier 3 - "not good" Mr. Fuji Oliver Humberdink DDP Sonny King (not sure exactly when he was done, but I think he sucked) Hiro Matsuda Tier 4 - "oh yeah, you forget about them" Harvey Whippleman Ted DiBiase Harley Race The Genius Frenchy Martin Brother Love Sir William There are lots of names I've not listed who had short runs, such as The Coach (John Tolos) in WWF or The Assassin in WCW, but let's leave it there. I might have a go: 1984 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Arnold Skaaland, who was essentially useless. 1985 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Paul Jones, sorry Johnny, he fucking sucked 1986 - Meltzer's pick: Paul Jones; my pick: Paul Jones 1987 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Paul Ellering, I've said it before, he brought nothing to the table, even allowing for his participation in War Games matches. He was good for that one line from Hawk, but a piece of wood could have done the same job. 1988 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Oliver Humperdink, completely worthless, completely. 1989 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Gary Hart - strong competition from Hiro Matsuda here, but I've gone over the whole J-Tex corporation mess before, Hart was a real mess on his promos, and served to complicate the situation rather than clarify it with promos that made it feel like time had passed him by. Basically terrible. 1990 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Oliver Humperdink, he crops up briefly in WCW managing Bam Bam Bigelow, still as a face, still completely and utterly worthless. 1991 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Big Daddy Dink aka Oliver Humperdink, repackaged as a fat biker groupie, and with "god gawd" DDP to cut promos for him, Dink was the 5th wheel in the incredibly uncool Freebirds entourage. 1992 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Paul Ellering ... 1992 was a strange time for Fuji, he was transitioning to the robes and managing Yokozuna but still had hair and remnants of his old identity, such as the cane. He was floating around not really doing much, managing Orient Express at the start of the year, and maybe Berzerker, before kinda disappearing until Yoko's debut. I think he wasn't exactly bringing much to the table in 92. However, nothing can beat Paul Ellering with a puppet. I hate Ellering. 1993 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Sir William ... I can hear the howls and the boos from the Memphis fans, but that accent is fucking ridiculous, worse than Dick Van Dyke. Very difficult for me to get past, even if Regal is a ton of fun in 93. 1994 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: Ted DiBiase, so much of the card was built around his awful stable, and so much of the stuff he was involved with stank. At least you can say the stuff Fuji was doing with Yoko was over and / or effective, especially in the early part of the year. Million Dollar Corporation was very poor. 1995 - Meltzer's pick: Mr. Fuji; my pick: The Task Master, Kevin Sullivan, don't know if it's a cheat picking Sullivan but honestly I can't remember Fuji much in 95, and seem to recall an awful lot of Dungeon of Doom awfulness, so him.

To get this back on topic, I actually think Monsoon probably did a lot for the career of "The Devious One". He did a lot to put the managers over in general, with his constant complaining about them.

I would like to talk about that too if someone made a thread, cos I think from both a smart fan and kayfabe point of view, Fuji might just be the worst manager of all time. Kayfabe-wise I've made the case before (somewhere), but smart-wise, he wasn't a good promo -- what's the point of a manager who can't cut decent promos? Then again, if it was me voting, I'd give worst manager of the year either to Paul Jones or Paul Ellering every single year from 1985 to 1990.

Well we could compare him with Vince ... or Sean Mooney or ... Dick Graham, who were also announcing in WWF around then. Okay, well just to Vince then. I think he loses out pretty badly to Vince. But Vince also pointed out mistakes, he did it on solo commentary working for Senior, and he did it when he was with Jesse in the 80s too. Not as incessantly as Monsoon, but he'd certainly note stuff here and there. But then again, as PeteF says, Monsoon had real credibility whereas Vince didn't. I even remember thinking to myself as a kid hearing Vince "who the hell is THIS guy?" Whereas Monsoon comes across as a guy who has been there, done it, seen it all. It does have its applications if you think about it. Let's say Monsoon is critical of 4 guys on a card in the first 4 matches, but then puts over someone huge in the 5th match. Doesn't it carry much more weight when he puts the guy over? Compare that to Jim Ross or Tony trying to sell us on Erik Watts as a great athlete.

I don't think he ever said that exact line, but I'm saying it was the overall effect / message he was trying to put out there. You've also got to remember that the way Vince promoted virtually everyone on the roster was pretty over already. When you've got action figures, cartoons, entrance music, vignettes, hot angles and so on, a lot of the work is already done. JR and Tony were trying to make new stars, they had to be a bit more protective of guys like Sting. Monsoon had a luxury that they didn't -- everyone was a "superstar" already, this is the WWF, it's the BEST PLACE. And so he could hold them to seemingly impossible standards. I'm not saying he wasn't lazy or didn't trot out the same tired lines over and over again in his criticism, but that I don't think the job required the same as what the guys in Crockett had to do.

I get that, and as I said on a recent show (Clash 16?), I think Schiavone is actually one of the very very best guys at talking about wrestling strategy, he's almost completely unheralded in that role and I won't knock him. But I wonder if they were trying to get across different things? You say Monsoon was trying to make himself look smart and the wrestlers stupid, but isn't it more that he was trying to get WWF over as the very top of the sport? i.e. "That might work in the little leagues, but not HERE!" No?

I think what Monsoon was trying to do though was come across like a regular sports announcer by pointing out mistakes and talking about tactical decisions or strategy. Monsoon's top priorities seemed to be, in descending order: 1. Get the match over as a legit contest, even if it means criticizing aspects of the wrestler's approaches 2. Get over the angle or the *characters* involved in the match -- note that is specifically "characters", namely his take on why babyface X is great, or why heel Y is a low-down and despicable character who has done A, B and C heinous deeds 3. Get over everyone as being "great", or at the very least a "superstar". Monsoon often emphasized 1 and 2 over 3. Was anyone's career really hurt by it though? *Heel Y puts his head down for a back drop* *Babyface X stops short and grabs heel's head / kicks him in the face* Monsoon: "That was a cardinal mistake for a pro" Kid at home in his own thoughts, "hmmm, it was a bad mistake, I thought heel Y might know better, but the competition is tough at this level! There can be no mistakes in the WWF! Oh and by the way ... DAD ... wrestling is real!" Or something like that. No? Tell me why not.

I'd certainly agree that his value to the company was much less as an announcer and more as the host of Prime Time. Perhaps in another thread we might have an interesting discussion analyzing this line: "[Announcers] are supposed to make you think everything and everyone you are watching is great." I am not sure that this is the only way to go with an announcer. It's one philosophy of announcing.

Wrestling announcers are not paid to tell the truth. They are supposed to make you think everything and everyone you are watching is great. With respect, this does not at all pertain to the defence I wrote above, which doesn't really talk about Gorilla as an announcer at all. I was talking about his studio interactions with Heenan.

It's not Flair's fault, it was the way WWF booked virtually all heels who weren't Zeus or The Undertaker. I'd be interested to see how many clean pins vs. non-jobbers (i.e. without tights or foot on the ropes or manager interference) any heels got under Vince Jr from 85 to 94.

Ha ha ha, Zoo, that's a very inside joke.

Another thing I worry about is the general assumption that all wrestling crowds are made-up of racist, sexist idiots. There needs to be some way of explaining that even heels who are very loudly booed might have the respect or even affection of a given audience. The Sheik, for example, in Detroit. Wrestling is often crude and unsubtle, but I think precisely because of that it's too easy to be un-nuanced and make overly sweeping generalisations about it.

I'm thinking of writing something about male pride in the Magnum TA vs. Tully feud. I honestly don't want to write something that is going to bury wrestling or be snooty about it. Maybe I could look at several feuds that highlight male pride in different ways: Flair vs. Steamboat, Flair vs. Funk, possibly Jumbo vs. Tenryu. In all seriousness, if they really want this to work like the analysis of drama, then it makes sense to start looking at the very best stuff and the richest stuff first. ...... Then again, it seems a lot easier to do something like "Terrible Turks and Evil Sheiks: Pro Wrestling's Construction of the Middle East" There's a reason for this. Literary theory has built-in tools to deal with topics like that. Feminism, gender theory, post-colonial theory and so on. But it seems to me very easy and almost a little passe to do something like that. What I can't envisage is whether the other people contributing to this are actually going to be referencing specific wrestlers and feuds or just speaking about it in a very general way a la Roland Barthes. "One wrestler, the heel, will attempt to elicit boos from the crowd" -- that sort of thing. Hard to say. I certainly worry about contributors to this volume not knowing their shit -- I mean aside from anything else, if they are only referencing Cena or Hogan or whatever, it belies a lack of scholarship.

I hope you enjoy it Steven. I will be on a one-month podcast freeze from today. If July was the month of Dylan, August was the month of Parv. Too much of it I say! September can be someone else's month.

http://placetobenation.com/ptbn-summerslam-rewind-series-summerslam-1989-part-one/ http://placetobenation.com/ptbn-summerslam-rewind-series-summerslam-1989-part-two/ Today marks the 25th anniversary of SummerSlam 1989 In this special edition of the PTBN SummerSlam Rewind series, Parv, Andrew Riche & Aaron George talk SummerSlam 1989! The guys talk about the build to the show plus everything that went down in the Meadowlands on that steamy summer night!

No, it won't be like that. It will be much more removed looking at how nationality is constructed within wrestling. How stereotypes are used. How "America" is defined and how various foreign places are depicted. It's less an analysis of what the "booker has written" and more a general reflection of the politics and the culture. What's it saying about the mentality of the product and of its fans, etc. etc. What I worry about with these sorts of things, however, is that there is a disconnect and an academic distance between actual wrestling fans and the people writing about them. That's one of the reasons I might write something, because I'd be talking as both a fan, and an academic -- and so there'd be at least one essay in there that writes from a position of internal appreciation. I can imagine essays being written that more or less bury wrestling as being misogynistic, racist, homophobic, jingoistic, xenophobic, and so on. While there is no doubt truth to some of that, it's not the whole picture. And I think there are more interesting things to be said that merely pointing that out. Incidentally, they've written back to me and it seems like they are keen for me to get involved, but let's see.

http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrestling-34-interview-with-the-russian-bear-ivan-koloff/ Parv, Pete and Kelly interview Ivan Koloff about his long career, covering everything from his early days in Canada, beating Bruno Sammartino for the WWWF title, working in New York, AWA, IWA, WWA, Florida, Georgia, and Jim Crockett Promotions. Ivan had a legitimately great career, and even though the interivew is almost two hours, we only scratch the surface. If you are interested in knowing more head over to Kickstarter and help fund the planned documentary by Michael Elliott: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1244526869/ivan-koloff-the-russian-bear The PWO-PTBN Podcast Network features great shows you can find right here at Place to Be Nation. By subscribing on iTunes or SoundCloud, you’ll have access to new episodes, bonus content, as well as a complete archive of: Where the Big Boys Play, Titans of Wrestling, Pro-Wrestling Super-Show, Good Will Wrestling, and Wrestling With the Past.

I'm thinking that it would almost be rude of me not to write something for this. I've just sent them a polite little note explaining that I'm a fan etc., and asking for a bit more info. I've mentioned a few things in the email almost as a kind of litmus test to see what level of engagement these guys have with wrestling (i.e. are they really fans?) I could write about pretty much all of these topics. Plays about or involving professional wrestling - well, there's the scene at the start of As You Like It, but I think this is a weak-ish topic. Pro-wrestling and performance/visual art - hmmm ... Performing gender and sexuality in wrestling - there is a lot to say here. Queering wrestling narratives - Gorgeous George, Adrian Street, Jim Cornette in MidSouth, Lanny Poffo, Goldust ... Wrestling and folk culture/working-class culture - so much to say on this. Dusty Rhodes, son of a plumber, the Austin character, Big Daddy in England, rich men / snobs / intellectuals as heels ... massive topic ... Wrestling and industrial change - not sure exactly what they mean by this. The industrial revolution is a bit early for pro wrestling, no? Professional wrestling as an archive of performed/embodied politics - yes, big topic. Evil Nazis, evil Russians, Hogan on top in Reagan's America, Austin on top in Clinton's / "the me generation" of the 90s when Kurt Angle was a heel, etc. etc. Race and wrestling - Harley Race and wrestling? Again, huge topic, could go down the route of Bobo Brazil, Sailor Art Thomas, Thunderbolt Patterson, etc. Then there's The Terrible Turks and wrestling's virtually entirely constructed version of the middle east. A lot to write on there. The theatricality of scripted athletics, promos, and the commentator/narrator - I'm not sure what an academic paper on this would look like, but the thought of doing serious analysis on promos and commentators is vaguely amusing. Performer/audience interactions - again, a very big topic at the heart of pro wrestling. Performance/liveness/mediation and the wrestling event - there's a lot written on this in terms of sports crowds, quite a long way from my area The performing body - ditto Nationalism and professional wrestling - see above on race Professional wrestling costumes - LOSS!!! Spectacle and professional wrestling - think of The Undertaker's WM entrances.

Dear colleagues, Call for contributors for an essay collection on professional wrestling and performance, edited by Broderick Chow (Brunel University), Eero Laine (The Graduate Center, City University of New York), and Claire Warden (University of Lincoln). Scholars in many fields (notably, anthropology, sociology, sports studies, and media studies) have taken up professional wrestling as a field of inquiry. However, the form has generally only been acknowledged as performance in a rather broad sense, either reading it through a myriad of forms and genres (from the medieval morality play to an outworking of Artauds Theatre of Cruelty) or simply noting its theatrical qualities in order to distinguish it from competitive sports. This volume aims to critically reassess professional wrestling as a mode of performance in more specific terms by both connecting it to contemporary models of performance analysis and focusing on particular case studies. Two principles thus shape the volume: 1) performance studies/theatre studies is an ideal theoretical lens through which we can understand professional wrestling, and 2) wrestling is an unique performance form that provides new and innovative insights for the broader field of theatre and performance. To these ends, the editors seek contributions addressing the following: · Plays about or involving professional wrestling · Pro-wrestling and performance/visual art · Performing gender and sexuality in wrestling · Queering wrestling narratives · Wrestling and folk culture/working-class culture · Wrestling and industrial change · Professional wrestling as an archive of performed/embodied politics · Race and wrestling · The theatricality of scripted athletics, promos, and the commentator/narrator · Performer/audience interactions · Performance/liveness/mediation and the wrestling event · The performing body · Nationalism and professional wrestling · Professional wrestling costumes · Spectacle and professional wrestling Also, the editors welcome proposals for essays taking up other topics provided there is a clear focus on wrestling and/as performance. In addition to essays on English-speaking incarnations of pro-wrestling, the editors are especially interested in essays that address the myriad global forms of professional wrestling such as lucha libre and puroresu. To propose an essay for the volume, please submit a 300 word abstract and a brief bio or CV by September 26th, 2014. Accepted submissions will be due mid-2015. Inquiries are welcome. Broderick Chow: [email protected] Eero Laine: [email protected] Claire Warden: [email protected]