JerryvonKramer

El-P, the stereotype is that philosophers are celebrities in France. Is that true in any way?

Have you seen much of T-Bolt? He's around quite a lot in 85 sort of time tagging with the likes of Rocky King on Will's mammoth Four Horsemen set. He was tagging with Ole, and they break the team up and Ole turns heel. Then I seem to recall him turning up in the early 90s in WCW for some god-unknown reason. I think he's at one of the Legends Slamboree shows too as late as 93-4. He looked TERRIBLE in all of these appearances. I understand that's past his prime, but I always think that if someone was a good worker, you see shades of that in them as an older worker. Obviously there are exceptions to that idea (see Flair, Ric), but it's hard to believe that Patterson was ever good. His rep is as a guy who could work the mic, kind of like a proto-type JYD. Rufus R. Jones I've seen less of. I seem to recall him at one of the early Starrcades but he's not the sort of guy who makes DVDR top 150 sets, and I don't recall him being around much in the jobber matches on the Horsemen set. Whatever the case, I don't remember him standing out in any way or being very impressed by him, but then again I kinda assumed he was like a Crockett version of S.D. Jones -- just a low JTTS or high-class jobber really.

Ladd has probably got the best leg drop I've ever seen. Whatley is my least favourite of those dancing jive-soul-bro 70s guys, because he turns heel and STILL dances. Heels don't dance ok Shaska. I've only seen Patterson and Cash cropping up here and there but they are never anything better than awful, they make JYD look good.

How does Crush vs. Savage at Mania X hold up? I haven't watched it in years, but that's a decent match in my mind. I'd like to nominate three people: Thunderbolt Patterson, Porkchop Cash and Pez Whatley -- basically any black guy who danced, shucked and jived in the mid-70s and got a 10+ year career out of it. They tend to be awful. Like really bad. I hope Ernie Ladd never danced. If I was George Scott coming into a locker room with my new list of rules for the promotion, rule number 1 would be "no dancing".

I listened to this on Monday but forgot to post a comment. I think it's remarkable that you guys have not only put on a great show for 200 episodes, but also built up a dedicated community around it from starting with nothing. I mean the fact that the show has started some serious real-life friendships is pretty amazing. Of the podcasts of this variety -- that is, two guys without any connections to the wrestling industry not affiliated with any established website talking mostly about wrestling from 15+ years ago -- I feel like this one is the equivalent of an 8pm Primetime show and it deserves the large following it has. I quite enjoy the moments where Scott and Justin argue. Or when Scott goes off on a big rant (even if I often disagree with him). Also, that clip of Jim Duggan looking for Sapphire makes me laugh every time I hear it.

I'm guessing a ton of the guys listed on their roster don't really work for them. Dave Taylor? Finlay? Colt Cabana? I don't believe that. I'm going to go on my own and wear a hoodie or something as not to stick out too much. Will never forget the time I went to a Wu-Tang Clan gig straight from work in a shirt and trousers -- whitest man in the room.

In other news and friend of mine just sent me a text containing a photo that he said reminded him of me: I am strongly considering going to this. If I get to speak to DiBiase I'm going to ask him if he considered himself a technical wrestler. EDIT: Just bought a ticket, no idea who anyone is on the card.

Question: is the NWO counted as kickstarting the "Attitude Era" or is the "Attitude Era" a WWF-only thing?

Did El-P just make the most simultaneously distateful and high brow joke in the history of wrestling forums? I laughed.

Well JQ, I think a Marxist critique of wrestling would be very easy to do. It would take the form of your standard Althusserian ideology critique -- the ideologies and values being promoted and perpetuated are embodied in the faces, those against which they define themselves are embodied in the heels. The only complication comes in the Attitude era, especially with Austin and those sections of the fans who cheered for the NWO. For that, I'd switch to a Foucauldian analysis of power relations and rearticulate the standard line on power-containment, i.e. the dominant power actively fosters dissidence only to contain that dissidence. In the Austin case, the WWF were actively fostering a dissident perspective in Austin, but in fact the net result of what they were doing reinforced the status quo (i.e. everyone gives their money to the The Man aka Vince). The narrative of dissidence is entirely contained in the product -- the same fans who cheer wildly for Austin and boo Mr. McMahon, are the same fans giving their money to the real Mr. McMahon for tickets, Austin t-shirts and so on. It's not real dissidence but the illusion of dissidence. Wrestling lends itself almost too readily to this sort of analysis, to the point where actually making it feels a little trite (because the conclusions feel so obvious).

I'm going to say vs. Lord Steven Regal at Halloween Havoc 93. Amazing counter wrestling unlike anything else on WCW at that time. Amazing narrative about class with Regal refusing to lockup with the "commoner". And because I like obscure picks.

Decided that it's probably easier to power through and stay up now until I have to meet my friends for lunch. Had a LOT of fun with this show. One of the things I wanted to ask Johnny as a guy from New Jersey is if he's ever had a Nathan's hotdog down at Coney Beach in NY. Probably the best hotdog I've had. With my old job I used to go on regular trips to NYC and got into trying to find the best burger in New York, I'd cite Burger Joint at Le Parker Meredian as being "up there" as a pure cheeseburger experience. Also, even though we kinda got sidetracked on the British education system and the social politics of the deep south, that Gordy vs. Martel match is really good. I gave it an A-, but might rewatch, considering bumping it up. It may make my top 10.

One of the little things I've been thinking about recently is how in the world of literary criticism and theory there are different critical schools and approaches. I think these exist also in the world of watching wrestling and rating it, although they don't all have names. I have identified a number of different schools as follows: Structuralism -- Matt D is a leading proponent of this; the approach of those for whom structure is everything. He's always looking for coherence as a guiding principle for the match. He doesn't like things for their own sake, they must have a purpose. Blood, guts and violence -- this is Will's default mode, brawling, sweet punches, gallons of blood, brutality, violence for its own sake. 00s-Keithism -- this is the now dated "workrate" approach that dominated the early internet. Workrate is in scare quotes because it tended to be shorthand for "guys who could do suplex variations and / or who could do flippy moves from the top rope". At its worst, this approach was blind to a lot of things. At its best, it encouraged more casual fans to discover matches from Japan and elsewhere. Role-relativism -- this is the "he played his role well" line, which can be a lens through which you see all wrestling. As in literary criticism, two different schools can often be "buddied up" in someone's approach. So you could be both a structuralist and a role-relativist. Role-relativism is one of the more forgiving schools of criticism. Individualism -- this is a focus more on what guys do than on the structure of the match. The thing in focus is more on the how rather than the why. Microism -- a subset or "advanced" version of the above. This is the study and appreciation of "the little things", often buddied up with other approaches. The wrestling equivalent of "close reading" -- more a tool than an approach itself. Contextualism-- considering a match within the overall context of the booking, what it is setting up or blowing off, and how effective that is. I find myself thinking about booking quite a lot, especially when considering finishes. This is the approach that most considers factors external to the match itself. Its mirror in the world of literary criticism is known as 'historicism'. There are probably other approaches too, although I can't think of them right now. I find myself flitting between all of these.

Clash 7 was one of those kinda nothing shows with a lot of silly fun stuff in it. I have a question for those of you who listen to this podcast regularly. We want to make it as enjoyable as possible, so we've been thinking for a few weeks about the play-by-play. Is it necessary? Would you miss it if we just cut it entirely and skipped to analysis? Recent shows have been going long, the GAB 89 show runs for 3 hours. This would be one way of making them a little shorter. Just give us your honest view. Where the Big Boys Play #37 – Clash of the Champions 7 Chad and Parv take a look at Clash of the Champions 7: Guts and Glory. In this episode: some appreciation for Jason Mann’s Wrestlespective show, Meltzer’s best and worst PPV rankings to date, “Fist Fighter” starring Superstar Billy Graham!, The Parade of Champions: Chad reveals what Randy Rose and Ranger Ross are up to now in 2013, Johnny Ace / John John Laurinaitis, **Wrestlecrap spectacular featuring the many masks of Jack Victory, the Ding Dongs, Norman the Lunatic and, yes, it’s Ranger Ross!!**, thoughts on Terry Gordy and Scott Steiner, Mike Rotunda on career-best form, are the Varisty Club an all-time, top-10 stable or even a top-20 stable?, Flair the Lakers fan, and is Luger better as a face or as a heel?

Doc - you're still lined up as the next guest for Where the Big Boys Play too (Havoc 89), in a couple of weeks, so would be cool to talk to you beforehand.

Will, don't know what your schedule is, but my opportunities for joining these recordings are limited by time difference to weekends only and then only when my wife has plans. I could do tonight at like 2 am GMT (9pm ET) if Chinese and 6 hours of AWA haven't killed me already. Just sayin'. 85 is really the stuff I've been looking forward to. Slaughter and Hansen etc., so would like to try to make one of those episodes.

Thanks Chad. I've been doing some research and I've drawn up a 14-day itinery. 1. Atlanta - 1 night. Maybe go see the Coca Cola stuff. Find somewhere nice to eat. Is there much else to do in Atlanta? 2. Smoky mountains - 1 night. 3. Nashville - 1 night. Music related stuff, catch some sort of show in the night. 4-5. Memphis - 2 nights. First day take in the town itself, find some BBQ, go to a honky-tonk bar etc., 2nd day Graceland. I will be sneakily looking out for Lawler-related things too. 6. Natchez - 1 night. I want to stay at this old plantation, feels a bit weird after watching Django Unchained, but Mississippi looks stunning, Mark Twain country. Will try to find a steamboat. Also, drive from Memphis to New Orleans seems too far without a break. 7-10. New Orleans. 3 nights. Everyone says New Orleans has a ton of stuff to do. 11-12. Somewhere on coast of Florida. Maybe Destin or Pensacola. 2 nights. This will be the time to chill, go to the beach and recharge. 13-14. Atlanta. 2 nights. On one of these days we'll go to Six Flags theme park, on the other I guess we'll get ready to go back and maybe go shopping or something. This is the ball-park plan, but it would be good to know if there are any places in between the towns to stop off and take pictures and stuff. Also, I do kinda feel guilty about basically driving around Alabama and avoiding it. Just doesn't look like there's much of note there and my only two associations with it are that Lynard Skynard song and racism. I would consider stopping in somewhere like Jackson for a night to break up the long drive back from Florida to Atlanta but only if there's stuff worth seeing and doing there. Would appreciate any input into this. Also, I am terrible in the heat, aircon and ice will be a must for me.

My plan for this evening involves getting a massive chinese takeaway and a big bottle of pepsi max and sitting down with the second half of episode 3 and listening and watching straight through till the end of this episode or passing out -- whichever happens first. At the very least I want to get to the end of disc 4. I am the world's worst when it comes to watching, but I have a block of time this weekend and am determined to use it to take a big chunk out of this set.

Hi all, this is not really wrestling related, but my wife and I did Route 66 back in 2010 from Chicago to LA via all the ususal towns in between plus Vegas and ever since have wanted to do a second road trip in the States before we have kids and it's too late for such adventures. I am thinking of doing a loop road trip as follows, the idea is that we're stopping overnight in the major towns, driving about 3-4 hours between them each day: Atlanta Nashville Memphis New Orleans -- 2-3 days here, thinking on a scenic drive through Mississippi but skipping staying at any of the towns. The back through Alabama (not sure where to stay / what to see there), other option would be dipping into west "panhandle" Florida Atlanta to fly back The timeframe is going to be roughly 2 weeks. Apart from the stretch from Memphis to New Orelans, we don't want to be driving much more than 200 miles or so in a day. This is a very rough plan at the moment, but I'll be fleshing it out in the next few weeks -- we'd be going first couple of weeks of June (how is that weather wise?) I know there are quite a few guys who post here from around this neck of the woods, so is that doable in 2 weeks? And are there any stops people would recommend taking in? I did consider extending the first leg to go from Atlanta to Charlotte to Nashville, but I'm not sure whether Charlotte is worth visiting or if there is much of interest there (honestly, Ric Flair is the only thing I know about it!). Maybe just a visit to the Smoky Mountains staying in a log cabin or something. I will also try to persuade the Mrs. to attend some grungy local wrestling show along the way at some point as a cultural experience, but the timing would have to work. Thanks for any tips in advance.

I'm going to go wildcard with Haku and say the tag match vs. Demolition at Wrestlemania VI, where Andre does NOTHING for the whole match before turning face. Haku worked his ass off in that match. Another contender would be that Heenan Family Survivor Series match which was in The Microscope recently. Again, Haku comes off as the guy who'd go to the wall for his team.

I was mainly talking about his selling. There's also a transition between blue-trunks nutter Hogan and the more cuddly red and yellow Hogan. Like in 1987, he's still pretty fucking nuts and his look wasn't as homogenised: From what Johnny's said though I need to see more 84-5 Hogan. I bought Brickhithouse's WWF set, so will dig into it at some point. My impression from AWA though is that Hogan didn't sell nearly as much there as he did in the late 80s and he also just ate opponents up in a way he didn't in WWF. That could also be typical face-on-top-AWA-match structure coming into play too though. Whatever the case, I don't agree that Hogan's offense was better than his selling for the majority of his career.

Dylan, you think Crockett would have survived without Flair? No Crockett, no Turner buyout, no WCW. Flair kept the NWA title alive and credible for the entire 80s (as a viable alternative to the WWF title). He was the number 2 US draw of the 80s. And there's "no argument"? I have to disagree on that. My view is that the survival of JCP until the Turner buyout is marginally more important to wrestling history than what Austin did (which is "up there" too). I don't think you're being fair to Flair here. He carried that company (JCP) on his shoulders for a decade and you don't think there's any argument that he's the reason there was a WCW? I even think he was explicitly part of the Turner buyout (i.e. no Flair, no deal). You're going to have to explain that one.

I can't agree with this, but I will introduce an element of nuance here after watching his AWA stuff: I think there are two slightly different versions of Hogan -- the AWA and early WWF guy, who was wild and always full of fire, and the red and yellow WWF Hogan post-86. I think the earlier version has really good offense, a wider range of moves, and more viciousness, but he is not as good as selling he would become. He worked in a much more dominant manner where the heel control segement is severely truncated. The red and yellow version slowed down and limited his offense to a small formula, but learned how to be a very sympathetic babyface and gave heels longer control segments so that the comeback would mean something. I think selling is more than just taking bumps. Red and yellow Hogan is great at taking a heel beatdown or at taking a submission hold and drawing the sympathy of the crowd. If you don't think he is, I'd like to see the argument.

I think Baba after 84 is light years ahead of some of the old guys we've seen in AWA.