JerryvonKramer

This will be a day 1 purchase for me.

This was a fun show and thanks again to Liam for the heads up and company. York Hall is a great venue and the crowd were really good. I do get the feeling that "something is happening" in the British scene at the moment, but I say that with no real basis for comparison. There are some good workers plying their trade on this circuit though. Really surprisingly high production values too. Thought the matches were a mixed bag. This was a lot more stereotypically Indy style than the Stevenage show I saw a couple of months back. I thought Haskins was good again. He was one of the few guys who didn't look like he was thinking about his next spot for the whole match. And one of the few people to take things to the mat for any amount of time. Project Ego vs Swords of Essex had some very amusing comedy spots from Project Ego, but one of the Swords of Essex guys is just painfully small and they embody for me the worst of the excesses of the spotty style that I'd describe as "stereotypically Indy". They did some ridiculously convoluted spots and few of them came off. I was genuinely shocked to hear a section of the crowd bust out "this is awesome" chants. I wanted to call back "no it isn'it!", but have never been one for that sort of thing. One of the things I noticed that we talked about during this card was how no one ever follows up on a high spot with basic stomps, elbow drops, knee drops or any of your ABC ground game. You'll get SUPLEX VARIATION, cover, slow getting back to feet, maybe turn to crowd at this point, the opponent gets back to their knees in which case either: 1. Flashy kick of some sort 2. SUPLEX VARATION, cover, rinse repeat While I am a big fan suplexes and throws, I do wonder why a lot of these guys don't seem to have basic elbow drops in their arsenal. Is it really easier to do a drop kick than to stomp? I don't get that development. It's a small niggle but one that highlights how illogical this style can be. The Colt Cabana match was neither here nor there. And the Heavyweight title was clearly taking a backseat to the Cruiserweight title at this event. Highlight of the night was seeing Devitt perform a double-foot stomp from the top rope onto a prone Liger. That is a BRUTAL move. He went over clean too. Mark Rocco cut a nice little promo about "showing them Americans what wrestling is all about and how it's done". He was one safe ground to get good pops with that sort of thing. ------ It sounds like I'm down on the show, but there was some really good stuff in there and for £15 I can't complain for a night of solid action. I am thinking about going back in October because Bret is coming to down.

If you'd asked me a few weeks ago I'd have said Fulton straight away too. But I've seen lots of RnR matches recently (and in the past) where Gibson more than carries his fair share of the work in extended FIP segements or taking the hot tag. RnRs worked "double heat" structured matches quite often that went long. They involved both guys playing FIP for 10 min+ stretches. The problem for Robert is that Ricky Morton is just THAT much better than him in both roles. -------------- Here's what I'd say: - Fulton at his best is better than Gibson at his best, but Fulton can have real off nights, he can be a 8/10 or even a 9/10 but sometimes he can be a 4/10. - Gibson's average level of performance is pretty solid, if unspectacular, he'll give you 7/10 every match and in that same match Morton will be giving you 9/10 or even 10/10 - I find it easier to get excited about Fantastics matches than I do about RnR matches I will return to this thread later in the week because I have two MX vs. Fantastics TV matches lined up in my viewing soon.

The one small thing I would say though tomk is that such lists aren't entirely arbitrary. Certain stuff gains a rep for being good. Shawshank for example has a rep of being a good film. It's not like people remember any old films and stick them on these lists. Ghostbusters 2 doesn't routinely make such lists for example. It's not just that "people remember Perfect", it's that "they remember him and think he was good". Or that he has a rep as being good. The mainstream fan does have some level of discernment.

No argument from me tomk, 100% agreed. You've outed a little nuance of such list construction there. The token nodding to things they think is important in the back half of the list. This probably isn't the thread to talk about it though. "Mainstream", "casual", "non-hardcore", semantics. I think Dylan's question has been soundly answered.

This may be controversial but my view of Rude is that he didn't get really good until 1989. Watch him in 88 against Jake and he's not the finished product. I don't think he had the charisma levels in 87 tagging with Manny or for most of 88 in WWF that he did by 89. He's better in the ring too in 89. Could he have carried Warrior in 87? I don't know. 92 is far and away his peak year for everything. Does anyone disagree?

Alright, I'll shoot you a PM on the day. I'm in no rush to get back after the show.

"Mainstream fan" is just my way of saying "non-hardcore" fan, or possibly even just "WWF/E fan". It's not hard to find this sort of fan because they are absolutely everywhere and their view is the dominant one reflected in the available wrestling media. Do a little google search for "best wrestlers ever" Take a look at this: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-...all-time?page=3 Curt Hennig is ranked above Lou Thesz, Terry Funk and Jerry Lawler. There is absolutely no mention of the AWA in what they write there. He is ranked at 23 on the basis of being Mr. Perfect alone. There are literally hundreds of similar lists on the internet. Perfect almost always comes in top 25. It's not right, obviously. In fact most of those lists are pretty absurd. I was just making the point that what he did in his fairly brief WWF run has left a really really lasting impression with "mainstream fans". He must have done something right. The perception of him is clearly far greater than the reality, it's quite interesting how that has happened I suppose. I get the impression there's a lost of posturing by younger guys too though, they might point to Perfect as a demonstration of their deep knowledge or hardcore fandom. Something like that. It goes on.

Alright booked my ticket. I'll be the guy looking vaguely out of place.

Did Razor really make the stepup to main event? I recall an IC title feud with IRS. And what was Luger really doing? My memory is him teasing a turn and then NOT joining DiBiase's corporation. I was thinking either Sting could work against a heel Shawn in 96 (turn him if need be, maybe easier said than done given his frame of mind then, fans were ready to boo him though), maybe it could have been Shawn vs. Sting instead of Shawn vs. Sid. Face vs. face a possibility too. With Diesel he'd have have to have been kept as a heel somehow. I agree it's a squeeze, but out of all the periods I can't see a place for him while Hogan is still there and I can't see a place for him post-Austin. He would have been an IC guy pre-94 and totally lost in the mix during the attitude era. Also it coincides with a period he wasn't doing anything of note in WCW.

Think I'm going go, have to drive to London that night anyway. Got any idea when it starts? Or of the full card? Doesn't seem to be up on their site. El Ligero vs. Haskins was good in Stevenage and it seems like they are having a rematch.

I have a serious question which is: what has Sting's TNA career actually been like? Has he done good work there? What's making the end of career highlight reel?

Chad, I will agree that his selling is downright idiotic if you think about it even for a second. But like Brickhithouse, I get a kick out of it and do think it is more or less unique. It may have influences from Stevens or Rose or others, but it's really it's own thing. It's taking the Steamboat overselling to ridiculous new lengths. A punch can legit send him to the outside. Totally stupid and illogical sure, but in my mind it stands out for exactly that reason. It's totally bonkers. Matt - it's possible my motivation for adopting these arguments stems from that place. DiBiase and Perfect were my guys so I'm drawn to bat for them, I can take that as a valid knock. I'm perfectly content to drop it though because what Childs said with the Pacino analogy is basically right. I do watch WWF with "a different head on" though, maybe I shouldn't.

Hey kingliam, where about's is this happening? If it's not sold out I might head down. Interested to see Noam Dar again and wouldn't mind seeing Liger in the flesh.

I honestly don't think any of those guys are like Perfect. They may have done a lot of bumping, but no one did it quite like him. I'd actually flip that and question how anyone can think he wasn't distinctive. I think he was REALLY distinctive. Maybe not on the level of what he was doing (lots of bumping, not much offense), but on the level of exactly how. I've seen guys bump like Race or Flair, I've never seen anyone else bump like Perfect.

In 2002 wouldn't they have just replayed all the Crow Sting stuff only with him terrorising HHH or Vince or whoever? Like everything else around that time, it would have fizzled out in 3-4 months. I actually wonder about if Sting had the right skillset to make in WWF. I reckon if he'd gone to WWF in 1990 or something like that, he would have been an IC title sort of guy. I don't think he was a very good promo. I just wonder if he might have struggled to get over in a place with guys like Warrior and Hogan around. Timing-wise, possibly the best time for him to make a move would have been some time in 1994-5. Around that strange time he had brown hair but was still surfer Sting. He was doing absolutely bugger all of note until Luger turned up (love that relationship and angle). He was crowded out of the main event spot by Hogan and friends, plus Flair and Vader. He had nothing to do. In WWF he might have been a ready-made opponent for Shawn and I can imagine a decent feud with Diesel in 95 that would have played to his strengths. I don't think he would have done big business, but if there was ever a time he could have made it as a main event act in WWF, that window in 94-5 was it.

Sure, I can go along with that Childs. Makes sense. And I agree that the point is a bit tiresome. Also, what is his "most seen" WWF stuff would you say? vs. Owen, WM5 vs. Bret, Summerslam vs. Flair, loser leaves town vs. Luger, WM9 vs. Bret, KOTR Does he have anything else of note? Someone mentioned matches with Tito. The Bret match has a big rep with mainstream fans, and I remember thinking it was great as a kid and being disappointed with the KOTR 93 match. I guess the guys who've been through the Yearbooks recently could make a good call on how well those matches rank with other WWF matches in those years.

Wow Parv, I disagree with most of this. Memorableness and showing up on some lists means nothing to the bottom line of WWE so those things are as insignificant to them as us going back and rewatching the footage. In fact, by the time Perfect became an upper mid carder was when the Rock N Wrestling boom started declining. I honestly can't see you liking many Perfect matches in retrospect because if you thought Tully didn't get enough offense in vs. Kernoodle that is essentially most big time Perfect matches I have seen from 1990-1991 with the exception of the Tito and Bret stuff. He is bumping right along against Hogan in more drmatic fashion than his manager that he is teaming with. Ha ha, should have seen this coming. And I'm not saying I would dig those matches. I remember that one of his when he's tagging with The Genius pretty well. My argument is something like this: Premise1: WWF in the Hogan era emphasized entertainment and character over workrate. Premise2: Therefore, work doesn't get guys over, but being distinctive and creating a big impression do. Conclusion: Therefore, workers in WWF should be judged against different criteria from more workrate heavy promotions. Premise1: Mr. Perfect was distinctive and created such a big impression that 20 years later countless mainstream fans think he's one of the best wrestlers of all time. Conclusion: You have to say, therefore, that he did his job well. Premise1: In a WWF context, the management wanted something very specific out of their matches. Conclusion: Therefore, it's not fair to judge workers against expectations we have from other promotions. I am not entirely comfortable with this sort of relativism, it goes against my instincts, but I can't overlook the idea of guys making the best of whatever role is given to them. What's appropriate for the audience? It's all those awesome Mr. Perfect skits and bouncing around the ring like a lunatic for Hulk Hogan. It's not being an "asskicker". One way of looking at it is to say that he was much more limited in WWF, as people in this thread have suggested. A different way to look at it is to say that he selected what was appropriate for the character and the performance. We don't criticize Al Pacino because he's not doing his Dog Day Afternoon stuff in Cruising. We shouldn't criticize Curt because he didn't do his AWA stuff in WWF. He was playing a different character. Saying he was "capable of more" isn't exactly recognizing all of the limitations and constraints he was working under. Sure, you can say you prefer his AWA stuff, that's fine. You can also say Al Pacino is better in Dog Day Afternoon than in Cruising. But it seemed to me like people were saying that he should have been a bit more like his AWA self in WWF. Is his WWF stuff overrated? Absolutely. But let's not go too far the other way. It's been said a lot that he was working in a comfort zone. How about the idea that he was actually crafting a character and exercising quite a lot of self-restraint to quash some of his more firey traits in that process? "Comfort zone" suggests that he was doing something that came naturally to him and wasn't pushing himself. Seems to me that it's much more likely that "natural Curt" is going to be your AWA Curt. Surely that was his comfort zone, and Mr. Perfect was something he had to be self-conscious about and control more. No?

Did you answer my second question there Matt? Who else worked like him? Are you saying that the only reasons he makes those lists is nostalgia and WWE's own generated hype? Why aren't some of those other guys making those lists? Can't you give him any credit at all?

I think WWF is getting quite a raw ride in this thread. I like the idea of a pure finesse wrestler and if you were to ask most people "which wrestler defines finesse?", the majority answer you'd get back would be Mr. Perfect. As Mr. Perfect, he was the closest thing I've seen to the wrestling equivalent of a gentlemen fencer. His OTT bumping played into this. He even bumped with savoir faire. Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there? I've often thought that the right way of looking at that era of WWF is to think of it like the character select screen of Street Fighter 2. That game wouldn't have been nearly as successful if you had a choice of eight Ryu or Kens. It's all about the very different flavours and play styles. Each of them has a USP. Zangief has a great close game, Dhalsim has the long reach, Chun-Li is fast, etc. etc. The main thing any worker had to do in the WWF environment was stand out and be distinctive and memorable. Mr. Perfect was absolutely unique in this regard. No one moved like him with springs in his feet. No one did 100% technical moves like the perfect-plex. Shouldn't we measure that run more on how effective it was than against what he was doing in AWA? How effective was it? Well how many times does Mr. Perfect turn up on "best wrestler ever" lists made by mainstream fans who've never seen AWA? The answer is lots. So he did his job. How many times does Skinner turn up on those lists? Or Hercules? Or even guys like Tito and Greg Valentine? Point is: he did was needed to get over and be a memorable for the ages in that environment. Did Barry Windham ever achieve this? And second point is: can anyone point to a single other guy who works in the manner that Curt did as Mr. Perfect? Feels like a total one off. How many times can you say that in wrestling?

Were Dusty's short title runs because he was incapable of carrying a long run or because a lot of his time was tied up booking and promoting?

Hogan probably would have made an excellent docker. Not just in terms of the manual labour, his political skills would have ensured he'd have been running that union within his first year and proably turning over a healthy nderground sideline by year two. Nothing that Marlon Brando or Jimmy McNulty could have done about it. You really gonna snitch? Watcha gonna do brother, when me and all my dockermaniacs run wild on you!

You're right. I have seen quite a lot of Tully from 85-86 on the Horsemen set and he's actually phenomenal kicking the shit out of jobbers etc. He was just a bit disappointing in a couple of matches here. Actually, I'll qualify that a bit: he didn't get enough on offense in those matches. Nothing was actually wrong with the work he did, bumping and selling were still great.

Also, just out of interest I did a bit of a search online to see if ANY of the dozens of "Top 10 Flair matches" or "Top 5 Flair feuds" even bother to give Garvin an honourable mention. Massive blank. Plenty of listings of stuff like Vince in 02 or Shawn in 08, plenty of Race in 83. You won't find Garvin anywhere. Out of curiosity, I went and looked at Scott Keith's review of Starrcade 87. He gave that match **1/2. Outside of this little corner of the internet, it's difficult to find Garvin getting any dues at all anywhere beyond being some chump who accepted a title he was going to drop. I point this out only to underline what I said at the end of the show and his legacy totally being soured by that idea. "Smart" fans.