JerryvonKramer

Does anyone else think that Taker looks like an aging transvestite who'd hang about in the sorts of seedy NYC clubs we see in Cruising? In any case, that's what I think.

I watched Wrestlemania -- had to do it in a few installments over the past two days -- but here are my thoughts unfettered from any and all reaction. I haven't read anything, don't know what the general feeling is. Personally, I thought this whole show was terrific and will probably go down as one of the all-time Wrestlemanias. However, it lacks that real ***** masterpiecce, which I think will prevent it from ever being in that conversation with GAB 89 etc. Only negative is that for the most part, the commentary sucked hard. HHH vs. Bryan - great opener and perhaps the best HHH match ever. Really enjoyed the psychology. Bryan does injured underdog as well as anyone since Randy Savage. This was at least ****, probably more. Shield vs. Kane and New Age Outlaws - "There goes the Attitude era". Best line of the night. And arguably the "thesis" of this event. Andre Memorial Battle Royal - honestly one of the best Battle Royals I've ever seen. The Kofi Kingston save was fucking awesome. Sheamus beating the shit out of that dude on the apron was cool. Rey flippy flippying himself out of the match was cool. Finish was great. Not sure how it could have been better considering what it was. Wyatt vs. Cena - I thought the psychology was very interesting here, perhaps "too clever" for the crowd or for its own good, but it was interesting. This was one match that really could have done with some BLOOD I thought. The visuals of Wyatt being covered in blood would have been a lot more effective in general. Still, not bad at all, and I thought Cena's performance was legit GREAT. At least a ***3/4 for me. Undertaker vs. Lesnar - first things first, the look on faces of the crowd after the pinfall is hands down one of the most awesome things I've ever seen. Really, it was worth it just for that. The black guy in the YES t-shirt -- priceless. The open mouths -- priceless. The match was pretty solid I thought, if not spectacular. I marked for the tombstone. I think it told a very effective story: this was one match too far for the old man, he didn't have enough, he was struggling for the whole match. Very good. Not sure about a rating, maybe ***1/2, but I enjoyed it. Divas thing - who was saying that cards don't need a bit of "down time"? Needed a trough here after what just happened. Randy Orton vs. Batista vs. Daniel Bryan - "the old Garvin stomp", ha ha. Batista took a lot of big spots from Orton during this, and I was generally impressed by his performance. Still don't really like Orton as a performer, I've never believed or bought into his character -- just feels too inauthentic, like he's from a video game, but I tried to look past it. With Triple H and Steph coming out and the bent ref, they were ramping the underdog-against-the-odds-Rocky narrative up to about 16 out of 10 here. The double-teaming between Batista and Orton was cool too, Batista bomb into RKO on the announce table -- that's what I call a high spot. Stretcher job. Underdog narrative hitting 20 after that. As a match, I didn't really care for it too much, but as a piece of overall storytelling in terms of the booking, it was excellent and very effective. ***1/2 for the wrestling, but more than that for the angle, even if it was always obvious what was going to happen. Very good event. PS. HOLY SHIT, Paul Orndorff!!!!!!! With an awesome tache! Awesome awesome awesome. One of the best things ever. PPS. Bruno, Harley, Bob, Dusty!! Yay! Our boys!

"No one ever had a bad word to say about him"

Further reading on this topic: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/19708-booking-philosophies-of-match-sequencing/ Wrestlemania 29 is a good example of how a buffer match or two could mitigate against crowd burnout. Not saying that Triple H vs. Brock didn't blow, but putting it between Punk vs. Taker and the main event couldn't have helped. Crowd sometimes needs a chance to catch their breath. They needed to "come down" after the big Taker match, and putting another marquee match on straight away after it was a mistake.

Correct and a better analogy than movies would be pantomime, or maybe cartoons, or maybe a dumb show. It's big and over the top and exagerrated -- and it needs to be for the guy in row Z to understand what's going on. People looking for verismilitude whether akin to real sports or movies aren't watching the right thing: go and watch MMA or something if you want that. I look for consistency in selling within the confines of the absurd internal logic of wrestling's kayfabe reality.

http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrestling-22-wwf-at-philadelphia-spectrum-november-1980/ The Fabulous Four are back in their second home, Philadelphia, for this card from November 1980. Don't forget to check out the dedicated Titans of Wrestling page here at Place to Be Nation, which includes downloading and listening options as well as a link to TITANS TV. On the docket: 11-08 Ken Patera vs Bruno Sammartino 11-08 Bob Backlund vs Larry Zbyzsko (with Tony Atlas as ref) 11-08 Pedro Moralas vs The Hangman 11-08 The Samoans vs Tony Garea and Rick Martel In this episode: - A Family Affair: a feature on Bruno Sammartino and his Italian 'paisans' - An update on Super 8's facial hair situation - Tony Atlas and his perfect Y-shaped body - One of the wrestling history's most surreal interviews featuring Tony Garea, Dick Graham and that notorious joker Kal Rudman! - Bio for The Hangman 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.

From watching WCW through to 1991 Luger is dicking on Sting in every single department (work, promos, matches, aura) for me at the moment. The gap is significent.

Not saying that you have to do this Loss, but I'd love to see a thread in which you broke down year-by-year who you think the best worker in the US is (for 1990, 91, 92, 93 etc.). Chad gave his 1990 award to Luger, I gave it to Eaton. Can't imagine there were any better workers outside of WCW for that year. But yeah, it would be interesting to see year-by-year picks. If you did the same thing for the 80s it would like just be 80: Flair, 81: Flair, 82: Flair etc.

Who else is in the conversation Charles?

Come on now, at this point you can't expect my memory to go back even to the last show.

Kamata held the PWF title?!

Today, my entire class knew who Bill Murray was and were all like "OF COURSE, deerrr". Which is what I would have expected before.

http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrestling-21-wwf-at-msg-october-1980/ Parv, Johnny, Pete and Kelly return once more to MSG for the card from October 20th, 1980. Don't forget to check out the dedicated Titans of Wrestling page here at Place to Be Nation, which includes downloading and listening options as well as a link to TITANS TV. On the docket tonight: 10-20 KEN PATERA vs PEDRO MORALES IC TITLE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN 10-20 BOB BACKLUND vs SGT SLAUGHTER WWF TITLE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN 10-20 RICK MARTEL vs BARON MIKEL SCICLUNA MADISON SQUARE GARDEN 10-20 LARRY ZBYSZKO vs TONY GAREA MADISON SQUARE GARDEN 10-20 PAT PATTERSON/DUSTY RHODES vs SAMOANS TAG TITLE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN On this show: - Bios for Rick Martel and Sgt. Slaughter - Alternative tights - Debutante vs debutant - Who would be the best-looking tag team of all time? - Memories and details of Superclash 85 - Plus Johnny and his mother take Manhattan 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.

You both do this neat little thing of coming up with your own logical reasons for lots of little things that happen during matches. It's a matter of interpretation and is what I'd call "the art of criticism". Sometimes it's there, sometimes you're reading it into the match. Talking with Johnny over many hours now, he does that. His quirk, I suppose, is that he'll spin most things into a positive and try to look for a positive angle most of the time. But his capacity for explaining why things happen in matches is almost always interesting / entertaining to me (see also "Johnny logic"). I see you doing the same thing in your written reviews. In a way, it's quite creative: it's where the storytelling going on in the ring converge with the narrative you're putting together in your head. I don't think everyone does this, but you and Johnny definitely do. So that's what you have in common -- the real differences between you two, which SEEM much bigger than they are (getting spun as analysis vs. watching for fun), are mainly down to personality I'd say. If you look at what both of you do it's quite similar. And in both cases, I think it's an admirable way to watch wrestling. I'll answer Childs's question too, which I just spotted. I think I do both things at once because, for me, I'm not sure to what extent the two things can be separated out (the analysis comes out of the experience). However, that said, I do think there are different types of matches that appeal to different things. A heated brawl / sprint or a fun spotfest are going to be exciting in ways that a chess match is not. Technically speaking, analysis should happen after the event though. You watch something, register your experiences, emotional or otherwise, and then break down those effects. Because most of us take notes as we're watching matches, the two things converge a little more than they might if, say, you went to the cinema watched a film and then reviewed it when you got home. A while back I do think I got caught up in noting down moves and each and every little thing that happened in matches and it was starting to affect my immersion and enjoyment of things. Dropping play-by-play from WTBBP helped. Watching stuff and then talking about it in a group setting where three other guys are going to riff on a match with Titans also helped. Reading Loss's "stripped down" reviews in the Tackling the 80s thread and trying to emulate what he does also helped. So I'm finding it easier to get sucked in these days because the burden of note taking is a little bit less than it was a year ago. Did that answer the question? Let me look again. Ummmm ... yes, I think so. I can't stop being analytical it's just built into my personality and it sorta comes automatically. So I'll just try and chill out the best I can and see where the match takes me. Sometimes it takes me to boredom, sometimes I'll be checking the clock and wondering how long might be left, sometimes I'll get emotionally invested in what's going on, sometimes I'll get into a tactical war, sometimes I'll pop for cool suplexes. I think the match dictates it though, not my approach. The biggest factor coming from me might be mood. I think everyone feels this on occasion: wrestling is something that watch for fun and the projects we do, we do out of love for it. But when other people are involved, suddenly those fun projects become commitments and you kind of have a duty to do what you said you would or you'll be letting others down. And so you're not ALWAYS watching wrestling when you're in the mood for it, sometimes you're just trying to get through the footage by a certain time. I suspect most here can relate to that, and guys like you who have been on committees probably more than most.

On the subject of this show, any idea who the two guys pictured in lights on the walls might be? I could swear it looks like Arn Anderson and ... Ivan Koloff. Finding these pics distracting because I can't see any reason for it to be those two.

Didn't Morton vs. Taylor make it for the yearbook?

If you don't suspend your disbelief ever, you don't function like most other humans. It's perfectly possible and I, for one, am willing to believe it. Like I said, I pity you for it. You're missing out on a lot.

whoooooshshshhhhhhsshsshss Anyone hear that? It's the life and joy of this thread being rapidly away by Captain Stoney-face.

Oh yeah? Oh come?

Was Beefcake actually meant to be a barber or was it a nickname like Valentine's was "The Hammer"?

It's not about plausibility, it's about something much more basic and fundamental. What when he writes words on a page about one character talking to another, you can imagine -- even if momentarilty -- that one person is engaging another in conversation. If that never happens in your mind and the words just remain inert on the page, you aren't actually reading. That process, in fact, has to take place. This line on the wiki entry for this puts it well: It's much much more basic than "plausibility". You can't really accuse people of being dogmatic when they are simply pointing out what a phrase means.

Who is being dogmatic and narrow Matt? "Suspension of disbelief" has a specific meaning; you and John seem to want to say "well that doesn't matter because we want to say we don't have it". Seems to me that you do and won't admit it. That's all it is.

Who are in the two groups Matt? I can't tell.

Believe it or not I actually think you and Johnny Sorrow have a hell of a lot more in common in the way you watch wrestling than either of you might think. I might explain this another time, but this thread is getting derailed enough. We should get back on topic.

I find it hard to believe Matt, since more than anyone else I know, you are someone who is into narrative. I've read your Buddy Rose match reviews, you are endlessly amused and thrilled at little things. I don't think you and I watch wrestling so differently.