JerryvonKramer

Coming back to Loss's original point. Mostly everyone gets on here. Mostly everyone. But here are some things that are guaranteed to piss people off: - Talking about your personal opinions whether that be views of matches or your interpretation of aspects of wrestling history as if they are fact or gospel. History is not a science, it's a humanity. We have certain facts but the conclusions we draw are inferences. So "what was Hitler's biggest mistake in WW2" is a matter of interpretation. You can make claims and back them up with evidence. But just because you are doing that, doesn't mean that your conclusion is the only possible one. Ergo, someone is not an idiot because they think Star Wars changed the way films are made, because they think the economy had a role to play in the decline of Mid-South, because they think Vince McMahon changed wrestling, because they think Tanahashi deserved his Hall of Fame spot, and so on and so forth. That we debate such questions makes this board great. But if all such arguments devolve into one of the two sides being essentially pilloried for what is, after all, usually perfectly reasonable conclusions based on the evidence then that makes the board a worse place to be. Surely, every reasonable person would agree with that, no? I would hope they would. If we're asking for tighter moderation, I'd ask for it in moments where a given poster comes out and uses the word "wrong". I'm not talking about situations where a stable fact like a date or the figures on a gate might be wrong, but in these scenarios where educated and intelligent people are looking at the evidence and drawing inferences. There's no "wrong" in such cases. You might agree with one person's conclusions more than another person's but "wrong"? That's the sort of thing that is guaranteed to flare tempers. It's a disrespectful and ultimately harmful way of pursuing an argument. Most people don't go down that route but the people here who do make this place a less welcoming environment for newcomers and for established members alike. We all want to get along, so if you're going to argue don't be a dick about it. Speaking of which ... - Talking down to people who disagree with your conclusions and saying things like "You don't know anything about pro wrestling or its history". There is no one on this board who doesn't know anything about pro wrestling. So don't act as if you've got a monopoly on wrestling knowledge. Also remember that people can read and learn more and watch more, as we are all doing all the time. There are more pleasant ways of disagreeing. - Denigrating other posters using facile images or otherwise name calling. Really an extension of the last point. I have unfortunately succumb to this temptation a few times myself, but only after I've felt very frustrated with someone I thought was being entirely unreasonble and borderline inhuman. With tighter moderation and people abiding by the sort of civil discourse I've been outlining, it probably would never have got that far. - Refusing to agree to disagree. This is a big one for PWO. If after going back and forth it's obvious that you are not going to agree, and the other person has said "ok, let's leave this". Don't make 15 more posts hammering your point home. 1. It's going to piss off that person and draw them back to something they clearly don't want to be a part of any more. 2. It's likely going to kill the thread dead there and there. 3. It's not going to go anywhere since the other person has clearly made up their mind already. Ideally of course, you are arguing to the point where you reach some common ground or at least see the other person's point of view. But that requires conceding ground, acknowledging good points the other person has made, and generally arguing more like you're in a nice university seminar rather than a court of law. We know from experience on this board that not all posters are like that. Ideally you should be charitable to the person with whom you are debating, not seek to destroy them. I'd love to think we could use this thread to turn a corner, at least if the moderators agreed to some of these principles ("the spirit of good debate"), they could at least intervene when they are being contravened. But I feel like we've said all this at least twice before, experience has made me sceptical. Certain leopards don't change their spots.

I'm 100% with Dylan -- if I understand him right -- that the 80s WWF scene (while all fondly remembered by us) just isn't very important in the overall scheme of tag-team wrestling history. The big teams of the 60s and 70s, especially in Mid Atlantic and Georgia, were at the top of the card and selling out arenas. In the 80s, you can see some teams doing the same: The Freebirds, obviously, Midnight Express, Rock n Rolls (although arguably their peak as a top top team is shorter), Ivan and Nikita, Steamboat and Youngblood and The Road Warriors. In WWF, the tag division was very firmly just that: a division. Tag guys didn't interact with other guys. They didn't main event many shows. I haven't seen a single person mention The Wild Samoans in this thread. They held the WWF tag belts off and on for 3-4 YEARS. No one talks about them. Is it because they sucked? Is it because no one cares about the early 80s? Or is it because the WWF tag title scene never meant a whole lot? Yet, we get plenty of Demolition and Hart Foundation and British Bulldogs talk. Why? It can only be because people know them and know about them. A proper Hall of Fame isn't about who you can remember or what you know. It's about who deserves to be there based on the criteria -- talent, drawing, longevity, whatever else. The WWF teams all seem significantly weaker to me than the big teams from the 60s and 70s and those from JCP and the other territories, simply because of positioning on the card and what was drawing the gates.

I like talking about wrestling with you Matt. It's fun. We may have serious disagreements. Often we do. And sometimes we agree. That's great. We watch wrestling all the time and we like to talk about it, right? I think Demolition fucking suck, but I love reading your reasons for why you think they don't. I love reading the back and forths between yourself and Will or Loss or Dylan or OJ or Superstar Sleeze or whoever. It's part of what makes this place great. I wish it was as easy as that with everyone who posts here.

I can only speak for myself and what I like in my wrestling. Patterson has been the only blow-away great worker I've seen in the WWF 79-80 footage so far. And, for me, it came completely out of left field. I wasn't expecting anything much from Patterson and wasn't looking for him to be great or anything. I'd seen the 81 Alley Fight with Slaughter before, but that was about it -- but I never figured Patterson as any sort of super worker. True revelation in my view. But he knocked me out with how good he was. As people who have read my stuff on here will know, I never see "great matches" as the only metric when judging a guy, I want to look at performances and what he's doing in each and every match, even the middling stuff. Patterson for me is an incredibly expressive performer. The guy sitting in row Z at the back of MSG in the cheap seats would always know exactly what was happening in one of his matches. But that's not all: he was a tremendous bump taker and very good at selling, terrific at stooging, great at telling a compelling story from A to B, great at brawling, and he could throw a suplex or two if the situation needed it. And he could talk. As an all-round performer, I've not seen anyone close to that so far in this period. Backlund has probably had the greater number of good to very good matches, but he's also had a far greater number of really shitty ones. For me, Backlund only has one gear. He's very one dimensional as a wrestler, and in every match he'll give you ... Backlund. He's solid, he can have a good match. But who is the more interesting and compelling performer? For me, Patterson is streets ahead. We've seen Patterson work as a sniveling and conniving heel and as a dirty fighting babyface now -- he can work from on top, from underneath, technical match, brawl, you name it. He kind of reminds me a little bit of Bockwinkel, but with even more of a bump-heavy style. The first match with DiBiase was great. The first match with Backlund was great. The match with Patera was great. Hell, I even liked him tagging with Andre. I guess people look for different things. I was bored rigid by long stretches of the famous Backlund vs. Valentine match. It was two guys lying around on the mat in one of the most boring headlock spots ever seen for 30 fucking minutes before anything happened. Other people call that match a ***** classic. I'd take the Patterson-DiBiase match over that any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Patterson, if nothing else, is just more FUN than Backlund or Valentine or anyone else from WWF in this period. That's why he's my MVP for 79 at the very least. For 80, I can see Patera being in strong contention already. But Patterson was just as good as him as the fired up fighting face in that IC match from April 21st. At this point in my wrestling life, I don't really care about winning people over to my point of view. I like what I like. You like what you like. For me, Patterson is awesome in 79 and almost as good in 80 so far. I imagine he was even better when he was younger. Disagree? Ok, fine. Nothing more to say.

People who don't like or watch wrestling shouldn't talk about wrestling. They don't understand it. They don't belong on PWO.

I don't think enough is made of the fact that Bruno, Backlund and Hogan were all active and working in the same promotion at the same time in 1980. http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrest...april-may-1980/ James is back from the dead to join Parv, Johnny, Kelly and Pete in watching more 1980 greatness: On the docket tonight: 04-21 RICKY STEAMBOAT/JAY YOUNGBLOOD vs BULLDOG BROWER/TOR KAMATA (Madison Square Garden) 04-21 PAT PATTERSON vs KEN PATERA - Intercontinental Title Match (Madison Square Garden) 04-21 BRUNO SAMMARTINO vs LARRY ZBYSZKO (Madison Square Garden) 05-03 PEDRO MORALES vs JOSE ESTRADA (Championship Wrestling) 05-10 BOB BACKLUND vs HULK HOGAN - WWF Title Match (Philadelphia Spectrum) 05-17 BOB BACKLUND vs EL OLYMPICO (All Star Wrestling) 05-17 KEN PATERA vs DOMINIC DENUCCI (Championship Wrestling) 05-80 Lou Albano, Fred Blassie, Bob Backlund, Ken Patera/Grand Wizard, Larry Zbyszko, Fred Blassie/Hulk Hogan Promos (WWF TV) Highlights include: - Bios for Ricky Steamboat, Jay Youngblood, Bulldog Brower, and Tor Kamata - Performing big and playing to the cheap seats - Random discussion of Mr. Perfect and modern WWE fans - Desert Island Bruno vs. Desert Island Backlund - Focus on Hogan's selling and offense 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.

Chad - "old school dude" sent me this on KM via PM -- said he's having problems signing up to PWO. Anyway, putting it here for safe keeping when you read some of these out on air. Glad "question for the listeners" finally seems to be getting over.

In terms of influence and drawing, the two sets of Blond Bombers Dylan has listed -- Hawk/Hanson and Patterson/Stevens -- are locks for this. As far as I can tell practically every territory had a knock-off version of this basic formula for about 20 years. Hawk and Hanson were staples for Mid-Atlantic in the 60s, Patterson and Stevens ruled San Francisco. From what I've seen of these guys in-ring though, Swede Hanson at least as an older wrestler fucking sucked. And reading about him, Rip Hawk was basically both the worker and the talker for that duo, which makes me wonder if Hanson was ultimately a replaceable part. Stevens we've talked about before, but I have every reason to believe that Pat Patterson was a super worker in the 60s. He's arguably been the MVP of 79-80 WWF so far and he's clearly several years past his prime. Peak Patterson was probably a "top 2-3 worker in the world" type of guy. You can trace the basic gimmick of the two heelish blonde Teddy Boys back to the Golden Grahams though and you'd have to consider them the originators. They would be locks too with big runs in New York and Florida. If you were doing this properly, all three of these teams should probably be in "via fiat" along with the Fabulous Kangeroos. This is where it gets interesting though: I'm not sure who else is an automatic lock pick along these lines. Maybe we should establish those total locks before analysing the much much more marginal cases (e.g. Steiners).

That photo has made my day.

Some excellent discussion here past few days, been a joy to read.

The phrase I find myself using a lot Matt, if I've understood you right, is "can't get anything going". You see this scenario a lot, where a shine spills over into an extended shine and the heel(s) repeatedly get cut off and "can't get anything going". I can think of quite a few Midnight Express matches where this happens. Mid-80s Ivan Koloff also worked like this basically 100% of the time. Would that sum up the idea you're trying to get at?

This. [/thread]

Steamboat and Youngblood need to be represented. THE proto-type 80s blow-job babyface team years before such teams were absolutely everywhere.

Well?

I'm higher on the Starrcade 89 match because of the bizarro world heel Luger / face Flair dynamic. Think it's probably Luger's best performance in the series.

Here's the screenshot: I took about an hour out reading and researching that. Fuck my life. Should note that Ventura wasn't fired, he quit over it. Luger not getting that pin does make him seem like a massive choker in the long-run. I'd probably take Garvin-Flair, Steamboat-Flair, and Magnum-Tully over it both in-ring and in terms of the story of the feud itself, but beyond them it's not far behind. Want else would even be in contention? Flair-Funk feud? Steamboat-Rude? Final Conflict? I'm a big big mark for Vader-Flair in 93 and the 96 version of Savage-Flair. What else? I'm also interested in how you'd rank the matches, Loss. Chad, Meltzer and Keller were all lower on this match than I was. Most people are probably higher on the GAB 88 match than either Chad or me.

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-b...e-champions-12/ Chad and Parv endure Clash of the Champions 12 for your listening pleasure. - [04:37] Observer and Torch roundup, including: Keller's Torch Talks with Jim Ross and Evil Jim Herd, Jesse Ventura's rubbish unreleased Sega game, and Haku's awesome bar-room brawl. - [58:11] Gordon Solie Wrestling News Network Update: "Bad Van Vader", Lex Luger's baggy muddy shirt and the Horsemen reach their nadir -- trying to break Tim Horner's leg - [1:04:37] Clash of the Champions 12 review, including squash, squash, shitty Steiner promo, squash, squash, squash, Luger vs. Flair part 5, and, yes, squash. Question for the listeners: can you come up with any ideas for how to make the Black Scorpion angle work? - [2:12:17] End of the show awards and last show's responses to 'Question for the Listeners'. 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.

He brought nothing to the booth.

Fair point khawk.

True, it's possible that's going on too. He is mentioned in trailers though. My instinct says that for Joe Public it's more a case of "from the man who brought you Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off AND Planes, Trains and Automobiles ... here's Uncle Buck!"

Yes, and the fact that he's named on that Home Alone poster actually strengthens the idea of him having some name value. How many WRITERS get top of the line credit? Richard Curtis was also "only" the writer on most of those films I mentioned.

I had that same argument with him Will. But doing some research, it does seem like films were sold under Hughes's name. I found a poster for Home Alone with "A John Hughes film" above the title. Seems to have had at least a cult following. I watched some trailers to see if they made a deal out of Hughes as director, and they did. This might get lost in translation but I came to the conclusion that he's like the American version of Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Love Actually, Bridget Jones). Not so much a director whose name can sell a movie (a la Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese), but rather a kind of rubber-stamp guarantee of a certain type of film (in Curtis's case, schmaltzy rom-coms, usually starring Hugh Grant, in Hughes's case schmaltzy comedies, usually centred on teens or else John Candy!) Hope that makes sense.

Any of the AWA guys. Ron Trongard. Good pick. I say: Arnold Skaaland. Jimmy Garvin and Mr. Electricity Steve Regal Diana Hart Mickey Garagiola or Boyd Pierce

Listen and find out.

Not sure I agree with that Martin: if you look at a Flair match, he's here, there and everywhere like a pinball. Think of that spot: up on the turnbuckles, then literally he runs across to the other turnbuckle and comes crashing down into the middle. Another spot has him flipping over the turnbuckle. Another flopping forward. Another crashing outside the ring. Compare that to a static 70s mat-based match and Flair has a lot of MOTION: up, down, left, right, out on the floor. I think the term is more fitting for him than it is for Hennig. It seems like Flair is the real heir of Stevens, rather than Hennig.