JerryvonKramer

I'll drop these in here too. Did it twice, once for straight picking who I think is better, the other for how I think it would be booked.

Just a few little things I really loved about that match: - the sheer roughness with which Charlotte was working, earlier in Kevin Owens was doing all this stupid Jeff Hardy setting up chairs and table nonsense, but in the main they were fucking struggling over a table, and Charlotte used it to jab Sasha in the face. It just looked nasty, and not like *a spot* you know. - Later, Charlotte put Sasha on the table for something else, but it wasn't like set-up, he really fucking manhandled her and it was full of hate, and piss and vinegar. - Charlotte's character work throughout was brilliant. I mean it would have been good in the context of 1986 but this is 2016 when fans chant "fight forever" but she was having fucking none of it, she gave them no outs, no chance not to hate her. It was just very very good work. - Sasha for her part took some sick bumps, including the initial one on the table, and she sells death pretty well However Charlotte felt like the easy MVP of this card in just about every way. Finish didn't bother me at all since they've killed the false finish fests, so one like that every now and then can't hurt.

Fucking phenomenal. Gritty, sick brawl, great psychology and storytelling. Feud for the ages. Love it. Easy match of the night. But rest of card was nothing. These two have been great every time I've seen them, feel like the Flair and Steamboat of this generation, just brilliant. To me, the main event felt like pro wrestling, booked and worked as if it was the 80s and it fucking worked. I have to wonder why everything can't be booked that way, but I'm glad at least one feud is.

To me she seems like the most over heel in YEARS, in terms of being a heel over with real heel heat.

In fairness, this really does feel like the main event.

That was easily my match of the night so far. Too bad the crowd shit on it.

If they book it like a midcard title, it will be as over as something in the midcard.

Buries the world title if you ask me. Shades of Ron Simmons. These guys already feel midcardy, need to put them over in main event. If champ was Cena or Brock or even HHH it wouldn't matter so much.

I'm gonna watch and am quite excited purely because it is three cage matches in a row.

Well I think Brian is very much a fan cut from similar cloth to me and my initial impression was almost like he was a wrestling soulmate for me. Many of his problems with the modern product mirror my views, love his knowledge of NWA and territories etc. I was less of a fan of black scorpion segment, and my tolerance for schtick is quite low. But I'm gonna keep listening. I also realised listening to first two eps that Bix is quite Woody Allenish, the way he constantly deconstructs the show as they are doing it ...

I started listening to these by the way.

The Hansen / Jumbo matches are only disappointing insomuch as they are matches in the 3.5 to 4 range rather than 5-star. For me at least the Hansen / Slaughter series was disappointing in that same way. It's not like they are bad matches, just not the all-time classics you might hope for. Just think "disappointing" needs to be qualified slightly, it's not like those matches are the drizzling shits.

Okerlund seems the much more glaring omission to me.

I think I want to see more appreciation in general of things I'd classify under psychology, which don't get talked about enough, less "storytelling" and more the mechanics of psychology: Feeding: this is most easily seen when a heel is feeding a hot baby face. I've talked extensively about this in reviews of Dibiase matches, but this is a much underrated skill and he was one of the very best at it. Timing: this is knowing when to time the gear shifts, transitions, hope spots, comebacks, etc. Again much underrated and not talked about that much when I read reviews. Crowd control: less your mouthing off at guys in the front row, and more knowing how to bring them up and down. Bock vs Hennig is the textbook example. This is something I find often sorely lacking in modern stuff, but it's difficult to have sensible discussion about it because people prefer to see old man yelling at cloud. Or talk about accepting a new reality or whatever. This is one of those things I don't think the 00s indies guys ever fully got. Rather than expanding the definitions of words, I'd prefer to build out the grammar of a pro wrestling match in this way.

I see some hard distinctions on this. I think Jack Brisco is phenomenal at selling, one of the all-time best, better than even someone like Arn. Brisco is better at getting over something like a full nelson than practically anyone I've ever seen. His character work is not all that, arguably better when he becomes heel and has that smirk on his face. Arn has phenomenal character work of course. Selling a full nelson is somewhat different from reacting to the announcement that Steamboat is the mystery partner. In fact Steamer is another one with next level selling but "okay" character work; Steamboat's character work is quite goofy at times. I think we lose something if we dispense with the obvious distinction between these obviously different skills.

I think it's all very simple: Offense: suplexes and shit Selling: bumping, and getting over pain Character work: encompasses facial reactions, working the crowd, and other such things. If we are talking about how a guy works a headlock, does he crank it or just lay there, then I guess it's part of offense, If we are talking about how a guy takes that headlock, it's selling. If the guy giving the headlock looks up and talks shit to someone in the crowd, it's character work. To me there is no reason to complicate these three categories.

There are also rumours that Finkel MAY have worked for Crockett sometimes before Vince went national: http://www.infinitecore.ca/superstar/index.php?threadid=80216&page=0#pager The main source is Michael Cole mentioning it on an intro to Showdown at Shea (where for some reason Vince himself does the ring announcing).

I'm wondering why Dave doesn't seem to give Finkel any due for 77 to 83? That's six years where he was ring announcer at MSG, the biggest venue in wrestling, and he also sometimes did the upcoming cards and things like that on the tv. He also replaced Joe McMugh (who did have a 50-year career incidentally, but no one talks about him for HoF) on Championship wrestling some time in 84, which are some big boots to fill. The Vince Sr promotion wasn't some rinky dink outfit, it was arguably the largest of all the territories if you go on attendance and population, although I'm not sure if Finkel did arena shows outside of MSG. Cappetta did Philly, and I think was replaced by Mel Phillips both there and on All Star when he left. Phillips would also do Boston.

I still really want people who talk a lot about smart wrestling and minimalism to review something like Mr. Fuji vs Strongbow or even just Strongbow in general and explain why those his aren't some of the smartest wrestlers ever. Not a troll I'd love to see Matt D and Elliott breaking down some of that stuff. Intellectually I think all the arguments are there waiting to he made, but for me it remains the basic proof that workrate really matters. I'm interested in testing the limits of ideas to see where we might find some common ground.

Ted / Savage was cut from Wrestlefest VHS release because it was on Macho madness tape. I need to watch that series again it's been years.. Marty if you ever want to do a special on them, I'd be game.

I think there could probably be a legitimate PhD thesis in trying to figure out what is and is not true about Moolah.

I'd like to know your views on Jumbo sometime stro, for me he's one of the true GOATs.

I agree with this broadly, and think that there is no substitute for watching whole cards. However, there are two realities that make this difficult: time and access. And on top of that inclination. We have an easier time watching what we are familiar with and contexts we already understand than those we don't. Watching a random old 80s WWF show is like comfort food to me even if everything on it is shitty, the prospect of watching a 00s indie show or modern WWE card meanwhile is genuinely painful. Most days, what are you gonna choose? I think it's important to try to resist the natural instinct to compare everything to your existing favourite stuff and instead try to appreciate it on its own terms in its own context. This is one reason I think exploratory watching during GWE was toxic, cos you couldn't really enjoy stuff without having "well how does this stack against Arn Anderson", "is this as good as Ric?" ... Most things aren't gonna stack well in that exercise. Now I feel a bit more liberated just to watch and explore stuff for its own sake.

I enjoyed reading that. I'm not gonna argue cos we all have styles we like and dislike more than other styles for whatever reasons, and some of mine are well known. There are a few things I agree with broadly. Thinking back on AJ Excite series, I definitely made the point that they were not good at matwork more than once, and as a result I think those guys are much better working 30 minutes than an hour. Most forty minute matches feel like they could lose ten or fifteen to be tighter. Also the point on brawling seems fair to me, and I do hate to bring up the spectre of BIGLAV, but you'll recall these guys scored poorly in the "A" rating because it seems to me that they only really worked one style well. That said, and this is a separate point, would you also broadly agree that we probably shouldn't criticise styles for not being like our favourite styles and that it's only fair to judge things within their own contexts? That's to say: while it's a fair point that four pillars weren't great at matwork or brawling (within what they did), it's not fair to downgrade them because they aren't style X which one might like better.

Taken me a while, but finally ordered PR and Puerto Rico.