JerryvonKramer

What is your strength James? Mine is ability to eat Ben and Jerry's without being sick or finishing Inoki matches.

I have no idea what's being said because I can't see his posts, but that's exactly what I'm saying. It's my hypothesis. Someone should do a study into it ... they probably already have. My feeling is that the gap between my generation and say the 60s generation is much smaller than the gap between myself and these 20-year olds. There are just so so so so so many things they don't know about that, say, myself and a man in his 50s or 60s do. I won't bore you with details of UK TV shows, but on that front there is whole raft of shows the BBC showed again and again and again. Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses, Monty Python to an extent, Blackadder. Now, they don't watch TV, not like we used to, so you don't get that. There's a certain amount of culture you just absorb through osmosis. Remember sitting through the Antiques Road Show while you were waiting for your tea? Remember sitting through one show waiting for your favourite to come on? Now things are "on demand". They don't sit and wait. They don't have to. They get whatever show they want, when they want. And if they do have to wait they'll go on Facebook for 30 mins or whatever. It's a totally different ballgame. That's my view. If people want to debate it, fine. I think it's self-evident.

This is known in TV-land as "hammocking". Put a weak show in between two stronger ones.

The one thing that might be skewing my results is that my classes have a lot of girls. Sometimes 90% girls. Maybe the sort of people who actually sit down and watch Godfather tend to be boys. These kids are meant to be bright, they need good grades to get into the university ... I am broadly convinced of another phenomena though. The internet also can produce like super-pop culture nerds. You've got everything ever made at your fingertips (for FREE). So it's possible for some kids to go that way too. My guess -- based on gut instinct -- is that most of those types would be male.

I also think the point is wider than that. We grew up watching TV. Not just what was on at present. But re-runs. Endless re-runs. And movies shown again and again. If you grew up not watching TV but being online instead, that's a different upbringing whichever two ways you go about it. Reading Wiki or being on Facebook can't and doesn't replace the hours and hours and hours most of us spent watching TV growing up. I think it's a paradigm shift. Maybe that's overstating it, but my own view is that is exactly what's happened.

Well, it depends what you mean by "outdated". Is Wizard of Oz outdated or has it become a part of our collective cultural memory / conscious? Poppins? The actor Bill Murray? The Godfather? In my mind, all of these things aren't "outdated" but are "ingrained" in our culture. Seemingly (and sadly), however, it's just in my mind.

It depends where you're coming from with Chad and I being "down" on the Steiners though. Chad has always hated Rick and was down on Scott's sloppiness when he first came in. I just happen to love the big power wrestling and MOVEZ we get to see in a match-up like Doom vs. Steiners. But so many people out there are like "MAN THE STEINERS AWESOME, BEST TEAM EVER" and from the point of view that neither of us have been like that about them ever, you could say we're down on them. But if anyone thinks we're down on The Steiners, then The Road Warriors are through the floor and down into hell. I feel we've bashed the Roadies more than just about any podcast out there. I, personally, HATE Hawk and think he's a prick, both as a worker and as a man. One of my least favourite wrestlers.

Yes. I'd be really shocked if that was true. The John Hughes movies are iconic and The Breakfast Club is on cable almost ALL THE TIME. Loss, I lecture students typically (but not all) aged between 18 and 22. It seems like I can't go more than a few sentences without dropping a pop culture reference. It's almost a tick a mine. I feel like I'm forever making analogies. These days, however, I almost always follow it up with a show of hands for who has actually seen or even heard of said thing. It's almost become an in-joke at this stage that I'll drop a reference and then say something like "Dog Day Afternoon anyone?" and then I see the show of hands. It's an interesting little game. And week after week after week, sadly, it seems to confirm my hypothesis. What's my hypothesis? That kids who grew up with the internet no longer have a wide cache of film or tv pop references to draw from. They do have some, but they are increasingly narrow. Potter, for sure. Lord of the Rings to an extent. Star Wars to an extent (though not as much you'd think). Increasingly, weirdly, Doctor Who (almost exclusively David Tennant version). Lion King. Pixar films. Oh and Game of Thrones (to some extent). Beyond that it's starting to be a stretch. I'm not kidding. It's pretty obvious when they collectively get a reference, even without the show of hands, because you can feel the energy and excitement of it. And weirdly it might also lead to them talking a bit. You can hear the murmur of recognition. Students generally WANT to show you they get something. I have countless examples, but this is just from the past 3-4 weeks of the new semester that I can remember. Usually between 50-60 in the lecture hall. Godfather: no one Seventh Seal: no one Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey: 2 people Labyrinth: 2 people "Have you heard of Bill Murray?": 4 people Ghostbusters: 3 people The Princess Bride: 4 people Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: 1 person Mary Poppins: 7 people (heartbreaking for me!!) Can you see Breakfast Club faring much better? I don't see much difference between the British and American kids either. The American kids seem even more into Doctor Who than the British ones, but that's the only difference I could really point to when it comes to "getting" stuff. The most disconcerting thing to me is that they seem gloriously unbothered by this. They absolutely don't seem to care at all that they haven't seen or heard of these things -- and these are literature students who you'd think might. I've talked to colleagues about this rather unspoken of phenomena and they've found the same thing almost to a person across the board. The view I'm formulating is that there's quite a big generational disconnect between the people like us who grew up watching TV and films and who are for the best part extremely cine-literate, tv-literate and pop-culture-literature and those kids who were BORN into a period of permanent internet with their eyes almost surgically attached to their i-phones or whatever other devices. It makes sense. Culture is becoming more diversified and less homogeneous. People tend to think of that as a good thing, I tend think of it as a bad thing, because it leads of lots of people not knowing what I call "Basic Cultural Knowledge". Just shit you should know from living in a country. A student asked me today what "sodomy" means. Christ. I can't work under these conditions! Anyway, anyway ... Coming back on topic, this is leading somewhere ... Just this past week I was doing As You Like It. This is my ONE opportunity to crowbar in a wrestling reference. How? At the start of that play a character called Orlando has a wrestling match with "Charles the Wrestler". And that gives me scope to say "imagine him coming on stage ... like Hulk Hogan ..." "Hulk Hogan anyone?" They all know him. British and American. I don't know what you can draw from this. It's anecdotal and unscientific, but these are different classes of different people from different places from the same age bracket. Seems like more kids know who Hogan is that have seen the Godfather. The Bill Murray thing was totally fucking shocking to me. But at this point I am beyond the stage of being disgusted or even surprised by these things. My honest view is that that generation of people don't care about pop culture in the same way as the 80s generation (most of us) do.

lol

http://placetobenation.com/titans-of-wrest...-february-1980/ Parv, James “the Super 8 stalkerâ€, “Weeping†Kelly, “Lead Analyst†Pete and “the legend of podcasting†Johnny Sorrow take their first step into WWF 1980. On the docket tonight: 01-12-80 Larry Zbyszko challenges Bruno Sammartino to a scientific match (Championship Wrestling) 01-12-80 HULK HOGAN vs ANGELO GOMEZ & JOHNNY RIVERA (Championship Wrestling) 01-12-80 Bruno Sammartino responds to Larry Zbyszko’s challenge (Championship Wrestling) 01-12-80 BOB BACKLUND vs BOBBY DUNCUM (WWF Title Match – Philadelphia Spectrum) 01-12-80 PAT PATTERSON vs LOU ALBANO (Philadelphia Spectrum) 01-80 PROMOS: Pat Patterson, Ken Patera & The Grand Wizard, Bob Backlund, Lou Albano (w/Wild Samoans) (WWF TV) 01-21-80 TITO SANTANA/IVAN PUTSKI vs WILD SAMOANS (Tag Team Title Match – MSG) 01-21-80 BOB BACKLUND vs KEN PATERA (WWF Title Match – MSG) 01-26-80 Bruno Sammartino promo (Championship Wrestling) 01-26-80 LARRY ZBYSZKO vs JOHN BUFORD; Larry Zbyszko says if he can’t get a match with Bruno, he’ll retire. Bruno comes out and accepts the challenge. (Championship Wrestling) 02-02-80 BRUNO SAMMARTINO vs LARRY ZBYSZKO (Championship Wrestling) Some highlights include: - Spotlight on Bruno Sammartino - Kelly gives us bios for Angelo Gomez and John Buford (WHO??!) - Johnny does an impression of drunk Adam West as Batman meeting Lawler in Memphis - Appreciation of and emotional responses to one of the all-time great, subtle and nuanced angles, Bruno Sammartino vs. Larry Zybysko - Insights into the character of the Grand Wizard 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'll have to download from Soundcloud for now. Trouble with my web hosts again.

That was exactly what I had in mind, I was picturing that line up from ESB.

I don't know how much you can judge from this but this is a little search thing that can give you stats on "mentions in rap songs". http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/i...rs-lyrics-songs You can see who has been mentioned most in rap songs in the past 30 years. Obviously there is a little bit of a problem with The Rock because actual rocks will be mentioned quite a lot. Ditto "Savage". Ditto Austin ("Stone Cold" is a common phrase, "Austin" has a lot of mentions pre-1990 because it's a common name, etc.) But you can do Hulk Hogan vs. John Cena for example. Interesting to see that apart from a blip in the mid-00s, for the most part Hogan destroys Cena even in 2013. Obviously you can play with this a bit by adjusting search terms. Straight up "Hogan" vs. "Cena" yields this:

Thanks Peter, awesome to read your thoughts. Actually we do at least contemplate this. This is where those time stamps come in handy ... exchange at around the 36-minute mark: Chad: Yep, Charleston, South Carolina, Dylan's home town. Parv: Right well I wonder if Dylan was in attendance for this show ... Chad: I think he was living in Chattanooga or that area around this time.

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-b...e-champions-11/ Chad and Parv review Clash of the Champions IX: Coastal Crush. In this show: - [3:52] Wrestling Observer roundup from May to June 1990, with talking points including: Ole Anderson's policies and signing as the new booker, talk of Vince McMahon buying WCW in 1990 (!), thoughts on the JYD-Horsemen racism angle, Cactus Jack quitting WCW, and lots more. - [00:35:08] Clash 11 review, including one of the strangest segments ever as Gary Michael Cappetta interviews El Gigante in Spanish, El Gigante's spacial awareness, some unique matchups, and JR's father's nerveholds. - [1:50:56] End of the show awards, and a new feature, '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.

Don't want to sway anyone one way or the other, but if the Cena / Umaga match wins this, I'm leaving the board.

Oh and ...

So THAT's who that is. I was like hmmm Aquaman? I never saw SilverHawks. Jake I reckon. Possibly above some of these guys. Duggan. Beefcake. Possibly Rude and Perfect too. These are guys I'd say would be widely known in the 25-35 male demographic at the very least. Lou Albano must have been pretty well known for a certain generation of people. Flair.

Come now, Dick worked really hard! He was excellent at his job. He can also count to 3 faster than any man in the known universe.

Are you really having a go at Dick Whorle?

Also, where did he come from? Seems like he just appears one day.

My answer comes in the form of this series of images. That tells you everything you need to know. Undertaker = wrestling icon. Hogan = cultural icon.

Why must we treat this as a binary issue? It's what they do well plus what they actually produce with it. Very few people here have advocated rating workers solely by counting great matches. I know you know that, having participated in a number of these methodology conversations. It's not, but I thought I'd raise it, since it seems to me that Steamboat smokes the other two on matches. And in so many other discussions, it's usually brought out as a the smoking gun, but in this thread it seems to be counting the same as categories that I've never seen privileged in this way before. If we take "great matches" out of it, I think both Martel and Tito have better "fire" than Steamboat in their comebacks. I think they are arguably both more charismatic as in-ring personalities as well. Selling is between Steamboat and Martel for me; Steamer was a big OTT bumper, Martel better at showing struggle on the mat and getting the crowd into comebacks when he inevitably breaks the hold. I also think that Martel is possibly better at building a match from a slow start to a crescendo. A lot of Steamboat's best matches are worked at high pace and intensity with a lot of back and forth. Steamboat's matwork in other matches can be boring and I'd probably take Martel working an arm or whatever. If I'm quieter on Tito it's because I need to re-visit his high end stuff.

One thing we might talk about is metrics. Are we judging it on "number of great matches" or are we judging it on who does what better, even in average matches? I've always been an advocate of the latter, but on this board, debates often seem to come down to the former. It's quite interesting to see some people shifting a little bit to make this call.

This is probably true to an extent, but in my case Steamer has been slowly losing some luster for the last ten years. So going back to my answer above, are we talking about people that didn't see each man in their "prime", which IMO is the 80's, as it happened? If so....damn, I'm getting old. khawk, when I posted it was closer. He now seems to be landsliding it. My sense is that *most* "internet fans" didn't see Martel in his prime in AWA nor do they think of Tito being a great worker, whereas Flair-Steamboat trilogy is often one of the first matches you'd see touted, ditto the Savage WMIII match. I could be wrong on this, however, and have virtually no desire to debate the point. My main point is that Steamer comes in always already touted as a GOAT type guy and it hurts him because he can only ever "lose luster" or disappoint expectations, Martel has only been talked up here in the past couple of years. Maybe in some circles he was before, but I wasn't part of them -- so Martel's stock can only really go up. I just wanted to highlight the fact that it might lead to an uneven playing ground. If we all had seen Flair-Steamboat for the first time on the AWA set (for example), maybe the mood on Steamer would be different. Seems like all this is redundant now anyway, since he's ... steamer-rollering it.