JerryvonKramer

92 WCW has got to have the biggest gap between PPV quality and audience numbers in history. I seem to recall Beach Blast has Steiners vs. Gordy and Williams on last though, not any of the matches you'd expect.

Kris - "oriental sleeper"? What's the difference between that and a regular sleeper? Also, shit, you do sound a bit like Chad. The CCR number 2 stuff was really funny. I'm currently in the interval here. Gearing up to see this fucking Brad Reingans match.

Do they include Ventura on commentary?

There could be a disturbing daddy issues element -- Martel was all the things in a son that Greg never was. It would be like the plot of "O" (the appalling basketball-based update of Othello) only in wrestling. I think it would work because it would be partly true.

Al - does that mean you disagree with my take on that Hogan match further up the page in which I draw the oppositie conclusion? I think the gimmick actually extentuates his flaws.

SWERVE - the whole thing was planned by Jack Tunney, who turns heel and starts a new whole new stable called the Can-Am Alliance whose ambition it is to unite Canada and America and end democracy in North America. Their ultimate goal is to make Tunney the new dictator-leader of this new superstate. However, after a few months we discover that Steamboat has secretly been working as a MOLE for the US army taking his orders from Sgt. Slaughter, Ranger Ross and Sgt. Craig Pittman. He becomes Special Agent Steamboat now. Then Furnas reveals that he's secretly been from Montreal all along and the Alliance announce their newest member ... Dino Bravo! Now Tunney's real plan is explained: all along he just wants Canada to take over the USA. So we have The Canadan Alliance (Martel, Furnas, Kroffat and Bravo) vs. America's First Regiment (Slaughter, Ross, Steamboat and Pittman) That's a survivor series match. In that match, Rick Martel pulls off a latex mask to reveal that he's secretly been King Kong Bundy this whole time and turns on Tunney and co, in a sensational face turn for Bundy. The match ends with Ranger Ross superkicking Tunney in the face as "Real American" plays over the speakers. Also, Billy Robinson is brought in as a "neutral" special guest ref.

Can-Am Connection vs. Can-Am Express In it, Martel and Kroffat both turn on Zenk and Furnas so we end up with Canada Inc. (Martel and Kroffat) vs. USA Inc. (Zenk and Furnas). Zenk gets injured in this match and is replaced with someone good but also representative of old-fashioned US values. Let's say Ricky Steamboat. So Martel and Kroffat vs. Steamboat and Furnas. Then what happens is Kroffat and Furnas turn heel and we end up with Martel and Steamboat vs. The Can-Ams. Come on, admit it, you want to see that feud!

I'd love to see a thread with khawk doing this for all the apocraphyl stories we've been handed down over the years through shoots. Loved reading that.

What about Killer Kahn in 87, khawk?

Was the only reason Sheik was chosen as the transitional champ in the first place because Backlund only wanted to drop the title to someone with a legit background? Is there any truth to that?

This thought flickered across my mind earlier and I thought I'd share it. Back in the 1980s, wrestling was presented in a kind of perpetually present bubble. There were some unwritten rules: - whatever happened yesterday is yesterday's news, now -- today -- is the greatest day in the history of our sport - guys who were working elsewhere were not acknowledged, they basically never existed. - the past was only ever brought up as a shill for the present and the needs of the present. So for example, if someone was going over Tito Santana in 1992, the fact he used to be IC champ would be brought up to add to his cred. - if figures from the past were brought back for any reason (e.g. the NWA champs panel at Wrestlewar 89) it would be for the purposes of an angle. These rules were in place for the entirety of the 80s and 90s. Then, something changed. The WWE decided that it was now ok to acknowledge the past a bit more. The WWE Fall of Fame became a big deal. This totally changed the promotion's orientation to the past. Rather than being mostly forgotten, it became among other things: 1. A new source of revenue. 2. A way for fans to look back and celebrate their own memories. 3. A means of controlling history. But this has had certain knock-on effects. The current WWE fan is CONSTANTLY being reminded about how great Steve Austin was. They are CONSTANTLY being told that Shawn Michaels is and was the greatest of all time. So the current generation of wrestlers have the hand of history on their shoulder in a way that no previous generation has. How many times did the WWF bring up the legacy of Bruno Sammartino during Hogan's run? How often were fans reminded about the greatness of Bruno? Obviously then during the Attitutde Era most of the big 80s stars were working for WCW, but it also meant that fans in 98 or 99 weren't constantly being reminded of how great Hogan or Savage were in the 80s (although them being on the other side now helped in that). I'd like to hear thoughts about this. The knee-jerk response to the idea of acknowledging the past is that it's a good thing, but I wonder if they haven't been shooting themselves in the foot with it. How is any current star going to compete with something with as much history and mythology built up around it as The Streak? Have the WWE backed themselves into a corner with this strategy of embracing history?

If Iron Sheik was so loyal to Verne, why did he go to WWF in the first place?

Is there anyone who bucks this trend? I want to say Savage. That it?

I've heard Walton make some uncomfortable comments about race before, like the Johnny Kwango joke he loved to repeat every single time about Kwango eating an ice cream in the dark, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, professor. Walton always made a point to identify each wrestler for the people at home without a colour set. He doesn't say anything he wouldn't say about a pair of white guys. It just so happens that Harris has an outstanding hair style as opposed to tattoos or any other distinctive feature. Oh right. Ok that makes sense then. They actually used to do that for snooker matches right up until the late 90s at least. I haven't watched a lot of World of Sport. It seemed to me that there was an implicit assumption on his part that we couldn't tell them apart. I am actually glad that isn't the case.

This was definitely one of the better Kamala matches I've seen (which isn't saying a lot). Some of his belt shots at the start were quite good and he was also good taking the belt shot from Hogan, but in terms of his performance it was all down hill from there for me. Kamala is quite a convenient gimmick for someone who just *has nothing* to do when he's on top. He had three tricks in this match: 1. Stall by patting stomach 2. Go over to Kim Chee for "advice" 3. Set up for a move that is going to fail -- at one point he awkwardly goes over to the turnbuckle and starts to go up top but decides against it. Then he goes for a splash which is going to miss. Because of the fact that Kamala just has nothing to give Hogan at all when he's in control, the match is stuck. It can't go anywhere -- not even into the Hogan formula. So what happens after the shine is that we get a rinse-repeat of the same scenario three times: - Kamala gains advantage, does something stupid, loses it back to Hogan who seems to be going for the finish when: - Kamala gains advantage, does something stupid, loses it back to Hogan who seems to be going for the finish when: - Kamala gains advantage, does something stupid, loses it back to Hogan who seems to be going for the finish and hits it for 1, 2, 3. That's not really the makings of a great match. Then we have another problem. Kamala's epileptic selling. It's ok to do the shaky-leg sell once in a while. But here we see Hogan hit an atomic drop - SHAKY LEG SELL. Then Hogan hits a slam. SHAKY SHAKY. Then when the legdrop comes, Kamala is having a full-on mental seizure in the middle of the ring. It's just ridiculous. I'm not willing to praise that level of craptastic as "playing his role well". Where do you draw the line with that? This guy is a savage, so anything goes? It's open season and everything makes sense? The two things feed off each other: Harris is a bad worker who doesn't really know what he's doing, Kamala is a ridiculous gimmick. Bad times bad equals worse. You could argue that in understanding the character really well, Harris can use Kamala to mask his shortcomings, but I think it has the opposite effect: it HIGHLIGHTS what a bad worker he is.

Mississippi Mauler "Big Jim Harris" vs Honeyboy Zimba from World Of Sport 6/24/81: So the gimmick is completely different. He's playing a Bad-News-Allen-type mean-looking asskicker here. And yet, the worker is the same. Super slow around the ring, in no hurry to do anything. He trades the Kamala chops in for clubbing forearms, kicks and headlocks. Some of the forearms looked quite good, but the offense was nothing at all to write home about. We still get the ultra lame big splash as the finish and the weak stomps. He does chest beating instead of belly slaps. But on this evidence, Mississippi Mauler if anything highlights Jim Harris's limitations even more when he doesn't have the OTT gimmick to fall back on. Incidentally, when the middle portion of this match slows down and there's not a lot going on, there's an awkward bit on commentary when he assumes that the viewer at home wont be able to tell the difference between Harris and Zimba if we can't see the height difference. He points out who is wearing which attire and then says "on the closer shots, The Mauler's hairstyle will come into view". Nice bit of genuine, inadvertent and "innocent" early 80s racism there. ---------- I also watched the angle from Mid South that PeteF3 posted. I enjoyed that for what it was -- quite an effective build for the monster heel -- but the most notable thing about that segment is that *holy shit* Terry Taylor gives Kim Chee a piledriver on the concrete as if it was an every day occurrence. That spot SOooo rarely hits, I was expecting an ambulance to come out. As for Kamala himself in that segment, his splash off the top rope is absolutely horrible. His slams look sloppy. Shawn sells his chops really well. I'd say Watts/Ross booked that segment pretty well.

Well I guess he aged well up until the moment he lost his legs. Point being, you can take Kamala from 85, 95 or 2005 and he more or less looks and works exactly the same. I am interested to see some Mississippi Mauler.

I'd like to think there's a 4th reason, which is to broaden one's horizons, to have your own views challenged and maybe -- through argument and exposure to other people's views -- develop and change your perspective on things. It is a meeting of minds, as much as it is a place to "to argue opinions". I realize that this is a relatively high ideal, a lofty ambition for a message board, but I do think it's there. The remote possibility of people going into an argument with one view and coming out with a slightly altered view has to be there for the arguments to mean anything. If all anyone did was to come in with their mind already made up and leave with it still made up, there'd be no need for discussion.

SLL, this is actually some really interesting analysis and it has made me think twice about Kamala, so when I watch some more stuff in the coming week I'll keep this line of thought in mind. The simple answer to the question of why Flair can be a "backpeddling" heel, but Kamala shouldn't be, is because Kamala is positioned and talked up by any promotion he works for as a monster heel. Not a cowardly heel, not a Tully Blanchard, but a big, fat, savage beast who you should be scared of. All that is undermined when he goes in there and behaves like he's basically Blanchard or Flair. There's an argument to say that this aspect of his performance makes him unique among the big men: you don't get Vader or Blackwell or One Man Gang or Bundy or anyone else in that sort of weight bracket working in that way. So you could say that this is a good thing. But I am not convinced that it works. As I've looked into Kamala more and more, the more I see, the more I get disturbed by the gimmick and by what must be going through Jim Harris's head. Take a look at this from 2008. It's a promo with Bill Apter for some indy reunion show. Now MOST people might look at that and laugh. I look at it and am truly disturbed by it. See, a part of me thinks "he's taking it to such lengths that he's playing the role well". But another part of me can't help but wonder about what this character is trying to do. He's not just a savage, he's not just from Africa, he's totally fucking retarded. I mean by that point he's been in America on and off screen for over 30 years and he still hasn't learned a word of English. In a way, the character is absolutely terrifying. I'll give him this too: in the sporadic 00s appearances on WWE TV (vs. Orton, vs. Umaga), he doesn't look like he's aged a day from the 80s. And since he always worked slow with a limited moveset, his age doesn't show at all. Still though -- for me, the jury is very much out on him. I'm not saying that it's impossible for me to turn around on him, but the gimmick is more troubling -- deeply troubling -- to me than any other that I can think of.

Thanks once again to Kelly for this. I don't know if I was just in a good mood, or whether it was the great show we were talking about, or just speaking to a Canadian, but for some reason I felt like this was the most fun I've had doing one of these shows so far. If you think GAB 89 is the best PPV of all time, let us know here. And if you don't think it is, what's your pick then? Try to include some justification for why you think it's better than GAB89, because I think it takes some beating. We are definitely reading out some comments on the Clash 8 show. Also, following your feedback here, this will mark the last time there is play-by-play on these shows. Where the Big Boys Play #38 – Great American Bash 89 In the longest-ever bumper edition of Where the Big Boys Play, Chad and Parv welcome Kelly Nelson (Ricky Jackson) to talk about the Great American Bash 89: Glory Days. Among many other talking points, in this episode: Parv talks about electric kettles in America and how a proper cup of tea has milk in it, Kelly talks about growing up as a wrestling fan in Calgary, favourite Jack Tunney moments, Gordon Solie’s mythical news segment in which he talks about WWF and other promotions, Bam Bam Bigelow’s boxing career, favourite quick eliminations from Royal Rumbles, how has Teddy Long had a 20+ year career?, initial thoughts about Brian Pillman, Kelly tells us about how he used to be taught at school by Bruce Hart!, the long-awaited return of Jason Hervey, what if the Dynamic Dudes were in the Wire, Chad and Parv disagree on Luger vs. Steamboat and then on Wargames, is GAB 89 the best PPV of all time?, and Chad and Parv fail to read out any listener comments for the 4th straight show.

Bix, I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but what the hell man? What do you like about this match? I thought it was terrible. The first five or six minutes are ridiculously slow and plodding. Chop. Chop. Chop. Belly slap. Chop. Chop. Lamest, weakest stomps I've ever seen. Then the action goes outside and Kamala uses a chair and a table. Not very viciously, I might add. Was this a no DQ match by the way? Why wasn't he DQed for that? Or when he blatantly pushed the ref 3 or 4 times? Speaking of the ref, he was so bad here that he actively detracted from this -- slow, sloooowwwww counts. Generally being fat and getting in the way. Then come Kamala's awful looking splashes. I've been watching Jerry Blackwell on the AWA set recently, so these look *really* bad to me in comparison. Then we get a comedy missed splash with comedy facials. And Lawler takes a leaf out of Mowgli's book and scares the savage with MAN'S FIRE. I didn't hear the call, but either Lawler was DQ'd (illogical) or he won on a count out (illogical, since Kamala hadn't been gone 2 seconds when I rang the bell). I pretty much hated this. Woeful stuff.

The thing is though Justin, it's often forgotten just how much petty shit Vince did during that timeframe too. The Billionaire Ted skits? DX showing up at Nitro? All the cheap shots every week on RAW? The main thing I don't like about the current WWE's mythmaking around this is that the WWE cheap shots are either ignored or seen as evidence of them being innovative and cool and the Tony line is repeated over and over again to show what an asshole Eric Bischoff was.

Is it weird that I was listening to this last night, I found myself being curiously defensive about Scott's various attacks on WCW? In a funny way, when we eventually hit this era, I'm sort of looking forward to it. Anyway, this was a good idea for a show, although I do think the WWE hype machine rather over plays the impact of Tony's "Foley is winning the title on the other side" line. I mean, yes, it was really stupid but I'm with Justin in thinking that WCW might easily have come out of this show with some momentum. Also, kudos for getting through 5 hours of wrestling in only 2 hours of podcast time

Someone get together a list of representative matches then. My charge is that he never seemed threatening enough to be a monster heel and that he came across more like a scared animal than a savage beast. My charge is that his offense was lame and you never, ever buy him as a legitimate threat to any top babyface. Post the matches, later on I'll watch them and give an honest assessment. Maybe others can watch them too with the above criticisms in mind to see if they agree or not. And yes, I think savage gimmicks are wildly offensive ("wildly" offensive, get it ) and it's one set of gimmicks I don't give a pass to for the usual reasons ("it was the 80s", "crazy Americans", "it's pro wrestling"), no real excuse for something as horrible as the Kamala gimmick to still be around in the 80s.