JerryvonKramer

I gave that one to Jake Bullet. He's in the fictional ELO tournament with Thunderlips and Hammerhead Jones. Who is coming out at the top of that? Bonesaw McGraw? Rip? Orlando in Shakespeare's As You Like It? Trying to think of someone with a win-loss record greater than 1-0.

Recent reading around George Scott suggests that Mid Atlantic was "just another territory" until the Flair - Steamboat feud. I think you can make a very strong case that Flair didn't just help the switch from the tag focus to singles, he elevated the entire promotion to be the #2 or #3 in the country. I don't get the impression that was the case before 1978 or so.

Mookie - did you count his appearance in No Holds Barred?

Why is Ax getting a higher rating than Smash? Figured it out now.

Be fair though Matt, this wasn't unfettered bigotry. I provided a framework for why I believe what I do AND said I'd be willing to listen to arguments in the three areas outlined in said framework. As pigheaded bigotry goes that's pretty generous.

As I'm working through 83 of the AWA set, I've noticed a recurring pattern in Bock matches of him being a bitch champ. vs. Martel, vs. Rheinngans, vs. Hogan he gets almost nothing. His stretches on top, if and when they do happen are short. For 2 of those matches, compared to most other commentors, I have been relatively down on them. I distinctly recall someone making the case somewhere that Flair was "more" of a bitch than Bock was. On this evidence, I can't see that. What I've been struck by is just how dominant the face opponents are in the Bock matches. The Hogan match from 83 is the only one with a good explaination and I like it a lot. Martel and Rhenngans though, I'd expect a lot more from the champ. Two questions: 1. What are some examples of Bock working on top for extended periods? 2. Was there any discernable change in his style between the 70s and 80s? I mean, I can buy the idea that by 1983 he's just older, that he'd lost a step and was not as on top of his game as he used to be, so he's going to spend a lot of time getting his ass kicked and going to have to rely on dirty tricks and playing the rules to worm out of losing the title. That would make sense if he was booked stronger in the 70s. There are some things about AWA I'm finding very hard to understand. Verne books himself as superman against Blackwell, but the champion can't get a 6-7 minute stretch sequence going against any of his opponents? I don't get it. I don't recall Flair looking as weak as Bock does in those matches, not even in that first match against Luger in 88. I know people here disagree with that assessment and I'd love to know why.

The condescension I can ignore, but you leave the Genius alone. He's the 25th best WWE manager of all time, at least according to this slide show: http://www.wwe.com/inside/top25/top-25-managers/page-2 Joking aside, I think the Genius was really good at what he did. Got good heat. Decent on the mic. Unique gimmick. Great bumps. What's not to like evilclown? He's certaintly not the 2nd worst manager of all time.

Just read through OJ's critical beatdown on Dylan from the previous page and I'm just trying to think of how GOAT discussions play out in other fields. For example, in football no one cares that Pele went and played for the New York Cosmos in the menaingless US league in the 70s and spent most of the decade selling viagra. It doesn't affect his GOAT argument. No one cares that Maradonna was a coke fiend who ended his career largely in disgrace. There they tend to go back to a few amazing performances in world cups and in Pele's case point to career stats. They are pretty much judged on their peaks. The same goes for Marlon Brando, whose GOAT case for acting, as far as I can tell, is based almost entirely on 4 films (Streetcar, On the Waterfront, Godfather, Last Tango in Paris). He made a lot of shit in his career, and post-Superman did little if anything of note except get fat. He is not even judged on peak periods, but on 4 individual instances of greatness (Apocalypse Now is typically seen as an aberration in terms of HIS performance and career). But there are also cases based on longevity. Paolo Maldini is arguably the GOAT defender in football. His peak was roughly 90-98. But he played until he was 40 and won the European Cup 5 times. He holds the all-time appearances record for AC Milan and Serie A. He won the Ballon D'or in 2003 -- which is remarkable on two counts, 1. that he was a defender winning that prize and 2. that he was 35 in 2003. Even more amazing is that he captained A.C. Milan to another European Cup victory in 2007 when he was 39. You can see how the case for Maldini being the greatest ever defender in football differs greatly for the case for Marlon Brando being the greatest ever actor. I don't know that we HAVE to go one way or the other. Was Maldini the best defender in the world at any time during the 2000s? I don't think so, but the fact he was still turning in very good performances and winning major trophies that late in his career is undeniably part of his case. But I don't necessairly think we need to hold The Score or The Island of Dr Moreau against Brando. I DO think that when having that conversation, the fact Brando is only on top top form in 4 films during the period he was a top actor is something you could hold against him. The person advocating Brando would have to try to shift the argument to saying something like no one else has ever been as good as Brando was in those 4 movies, or whatever. Point is: I don't think Dylan is wrong to want to stretch out the period of time you consider for Funk and I don't think Loss is wrong to limit Flair to just the 80s. Every case is going to have a different shape. Maldini's achievements in the 2000s are exceptional in part because footallers are EXPECTED to retire around 35 and to have a sharp drop off after 32. So him bucking that trend is another string to his bow. The same is true of Funk. BUT that doesn't mean you can hold it against a footballer who retires at 35 and who dropped off after he was 32, there's no EXPECTATION to do so. I don't think you punish guys for not bucking expections, and so you can't punish Flair for the drop off. That doesn't mean you can't reward Funk for bucking expectations.

Why do you care? Bleacher Report is generally regarded as one of the worst sites on the web, existing solely to generate google hits I care because it's a fountain of misinformation. I care because there's a chance that 1,500 young WWE fans now think The Genius is the 2nd worst manager in history. I care because it feels like noise that drowns out better-informed opinions from people like the DVDR guys and many of the guys with columns and things who post here. I care because I'm a wrestling fan and I don't like to see the perpetuation of inauthentic and shallow views.

That part of you is right, and it has nothing to do with being a limp-wristed liberal, and everything to do with wrestling quality not being something meant to be determined via a mathematical formula. I'm not saying there's no value to it, but if there is, it's something you'd do for kicks just to see how wrestlers fare when held up to a certain standard, not something you use to derive hard, conclusive, scientific answers from. There are none. Also, do you see how saying that "I am not entertaining the idea that he was a better worker than Ted in WWF because that idea is not only wrongheaded but also just wrong," effectively denying any opposing view the right to even be stated, nevermind seriously considered, and then inventing a mathematical formula essentially to shut down even the remotest possibility of a contrary opinion might be perceived as you trying to be smarter than the room? I mean, seriously, at this point, why not just start a religion that says Ted's WWF run was awesome. Then you have science AND God to back you up. You know, from a certain point of view, posts like this might make it seem that you are trying to set yourself as "smarter than the room", just saying. I mean you seem to be awfully sure about your conclusions here. I think it was Loss who said that he doesn't feel the need in each and every post to preface every statement with "in my opinion", I feel the same. Ted does have God to back him up though

I'll knock this idea on the head then. Ha ha.

Can't they get you doing lists Bix?

Working list here. 1. Ric Flair vs Harley Race (8/17/83) 2. Rock & Roll Express vs Ivan Koloff & Krusher Kruschev (07/09/85) 3. Tully Blanchard vs Ron Garvin (Worldwide 05/03/86) 4. Ric Flair vs Ricky Morton (Pro 05/86) 5. Rock & Roll Express vs Rick Rude & Manny Fernandez (WCW 12/86) 6. Ric Flair vs Barry Windham (Worldwide 01/24/87) 7. Midnight Express vs Barry Windham & Ron Garvin (WCW 05/87 - Finals of US tag title tournament) 8. Ric Flair & Lex Luger vs Ron & Jimmy Garvin (summer 87) 9. Rock & Roll Express vs. Arn and Tully (9/87) 10. Ric Flair vs Ron Garvin (Worldwide 09/25/87) 11. Barry Windham vs Tully Blanchard (WCW 01/23/88) 12. Midnight Express vs Fantastics (Pro 03/26/88) 13. Midnight Express vs Fantastics (Worldwide 05/14/88) 14. Ric Flair vs Sting (early 88) 15. Ric Flair, Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard vs Lex Luger, Barry Windham & Sting (Main Event 04/03/88) 16. Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard vs Lex Luger & Barry Windham (Main Event 04/24/88 - Windham turn) 17. Barry Windham vs Eddie Gilbert (WCW 12/31/88) 18. Ric Flair & Barry Windham vs Ricky Steamboat & Eddie Gilbert (WCW 01/21/89) 19. Sting vs. Muta (9/11/89) 20. Flair vs. Muta (11/25/89) --- 21. Flair and Arn Vs Garvin and Rhodes (2/22/86) 22. Tully Blanchard vs Don Kernodle (Worldwide 05/11/85) 23. Ric Flair vs Nikita Koloff (WCW Sunday Edition 08/11/85 - Easily their best match) 24. Ric Flair vs Ron Garvin (WCW 12/28/85) 25. Ole Anderson vs Magnum TA (WCW 12/28/85) 26. Flair/Arn/Ole vs Dusty/Magnum/Manny (Worldwide 12/21/85) 27. Windham vs. Tully (4/10/88) I'm also interested in personally: 28. Dick Murdoch vs. Nikita Koloff (1/16/88) 1. Because Meltzer raves about it, 2. because it's held up as an example of how Murdoch is a great and 3. because honestly there is no one in the world I like less than Koloff in 88 and it's hard for me to believe he had a good match. ---- We're going to have to consult on which of these we will watch. Doing more than 20 will result in something like a 6-hour show, which I don't have the stamina for. Definitely want a better look at Windham because he's been disappointing on the big shows. Definitely want to see more Tully because he's in possible contention for #1 spot. Definitely want to see more MX vs. Fantastics because I don't think we got the best of that feud on PPV. Interested in the RnR vs. Russians match because Ivan's MO is playing a heel in peril and either he or Morton will be forced to do something different there. Also, I just LOVE studio wrestling. Maybe we bump it up to 30 and do a two-parter. 15 matches each way. We may stumble on footage issues. I have Will's Horsemen set but stuff seems to be disappearing from youtube all the time. The NWA packs on XWT Classics tend to be gigantic. Should be alright hopefully. Finally: Are there any other Crockett Sgt. Slaughter matches out there that wouldn't look out of place on a list like this? He's a one-match wonder at present.

Really? That's pretty douchey. Didn't he understand they were up against Wrestlemania that night and that seeing NWA's top talent in an empty stadium might be more detrimental to house show business than them giving away their headline match for free? Also, if that was his plan, booking the New Orleans Super Dome is just positiviely crazy. That place has a capacity of 70,000. I don't actually understand why they booked the Super Dome anyway. When had JCP/NWA EVER done a gate of that many? Through all these shows I don't recall a show going much over 15,000. Starrcade 83 drew about that. Whoever got the idea that they could even fill the Super Dome to HALF capacity? Especially when nut-job Scott is running around sabotaging the advertising. Just nuts.

What stats tell you that the slideshows are popular? Clickthrough rates? I don't blame BR for them, but I have always hated them. I'd prefer all the info on just one page, maybe 2-3 for a long article. A paper-thin article on the bottom 25 WWE managers should not take 27 clicks of my mouse. I don't mind scrolling down. Are the 1,500 "reads" that article has had because everyone who has looked through it has to hit it at least 27 times? Are they because if you google "WWE managers" it's in the first 5 pages of google, as all BR articles seem to be? I just wonder what "popularity" really means in this context.

Thanks for these comments guys. Pete what do you know about that advertising campaign because on the show we are both just utterly in shock at the idea that only 900 tickets were sold the Sunday before the show. What were they doing? They had over 3 hours of national TV a week on TBS and in syndication. The Flair-Steamboat feud had been booked well. The feud was hot. The Chi-Town show had produced one of the greatest matches anyone had seen for years so what the hell were they doing? I mean George Scott quit (and probably would have been fired), but he can't carry sole blame for this. Turner had all the resources you could hope for to push this show, so what gives? It sickens me. ----- I know this is a long show, but when people get to the main event would love to hear thoughts on Flair vs. Steamboat both in terms of what you think of the match and if you still have it in the greatest match conversation (or is it considered passe now?) I don't think either of us had watched it as closely or as analytically as we did here before, and honestly I saw levels that had escaped me in the past. I really love it.

I understand that Exposer, I just hate the pretentiousness of them including guys like The Genius AS IF they were watching or have even watched 92-era WWF. Who are they trying to kid? Who are they impressing? What point is it trying to prove? It's the equivalent of my coming up with a top 100 film list and including films I've not even seen on it because I happen to have seen the AFI have it in their top 10. I mean it's painfully obvious from the little paragraphs included that, when it comes to anyone from pre-Attitude era WWF, the chap writing this is posing rather than speaking from experience of not liking someone. It's something that really rankles with me. Not the fact of who it is aimed at, but the fact of fraudulently putting together these lists when the knowledge clearly isn't there.

Then I see that there's 55 comments and every single one of them is about Vickie Guerrero and it all makes sense. Why bother trying to pretend then? Why not make the list from 96 onwards or something? I find it really irritating.

I was just doing a little google image search for Frenchy Martin (yes, to double check that's him in Dylan's avatar), when I stumbled on this article: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1010944...ds-ever/page/25 This is what I don't like about Bleacher Report lists like this. The Genius is obviously not the second worst WWE manager of all time ... hell, he probably isn't bottom 25 and I object to him being called an "ineffectual buffoon prancing behind [Mr. Perfect]" Do the guys who write these things put any thought into it at all? Did they even watch the product at that time? It always comes off as something they've just come up with after reading a Wiki entry and watching 20 seconds on youtube, if that. Frenchy Martin is at 21 by the way. My lasting image of him is doing the shaking leg KO sell for the Garvin stomp. Disappointed not to see Paul Ellering with a puppet circa 92 in there.

It will be on the forum. Picture rounds posted as .jpg images, audio rounds as downloadable .mp3.

No idea if this will take off but I've done this sort of thing on other forums in the past to some success -- if it goes well there could be future quizzes in which the champions could defend their titles. Format - Participants can take part solo or in teams of up to 3 people. Quiz is designed to spur conversation and consultation, which can take place over PMs or in this thread via spoiler tags. - Quiz is designed to be google-proof so it will be audio-visual only. Cheating of any kind is discouraged. - There will be 4 rounds, overall winner is team or individual with most points at the end. There will be a sub-winner declared just for the wrestling rounds: 1. Wrestling picture round. Typically only part of a given wrestling-related figure will be shown. 2. General knowledge picture round. This will be a bit more forgiving. 3. Wrestling audio round. Audio clips of various wrestling-related figures. 4. Movie and music audio round. Film clips and song clips. - If you want to play post a wrestling-related photo of your choice or type IN. - Deadline for sign-ups is Friday, quiz will start on Saturday.

I went back to the Starrcade 86 show we did to see what was said ... So I definitely liked it first time around. Going to watch it again now. Match really starts taking off after Garvin throws that drink in Bubba's face. That adds to a sense of chaos and his punches are just so good. Bubba is forced to bail as he's been out-strategized by the more experienced brawler. Bubba uses his size and weight advantage to swing back momentum. He's perhaps a little slow when he's on top, it's like he doesn't have a lot of stuff to do. There's one point where he waits for Garvin to get a 8 count and just stands there watching Tommy Young count it -- not sure that's what a Louisville Streetfight is all about. Garvin comes back with violence, but superior strength and size comes out on top again and Bubba goes to a bearhug, again not sure that's what the streetfight is about but Garvin uses some headbutts to keep things rough. Bubba does legitimately look like he's getting his ass kicked in this match and the blood and ripped shirt help. The piledriver ruled, and it made sense to give Bubba the win here if they were looking to make a monster heel (think their booking of Bubba after this sucked tbh, but still). So I still like this match. I think I saw more negatives in it this time round because Bubba's greenness does come through a lot. For a street fight he doesn't bring a lot of intensity, which is shown up even more by just how fierce Garvin is here. Bubba is too slow when he's on top, too many times when he's looking around wondering what to do next ... you can even hear Jim Cornette screaming at him to do something at several different times. It's a good match, but I feel that it could have been a very good or even great one if Bubba had brought more.

I would honestly want to see people's thoughts on The Fantastics vs. Eddie Gilbert and Ron Simmons from Clash 4. I just went wild for that match and it's not exactly pimped. I know Dylan is a fan of it