JerryvonKramer

Thanks a lot for this Loss. I think because this is mainly for awards purposes, we could shoot for the 20 *best* matches. Brian filled in a lot of detail for angles and things on those early shows so we were aware of ongoing angles and things even if we didn't watch the TV. I am insanely excited for the prospect of Tully vs. Ron Garvin. I can say this right now that Garvin is in contention for a top 3 slot for best workers, and that's the sort of thing that might tip it for him. Feel free to mention any hidden gems or personal picks.

I saw Hogan take 5 Randy Savage elbows once and he still got up.

It did occur to me Dylan during the course of writing that post and reading it back that a 5-point scale is not wide enough. I don't know how far you take it. 10-point? 100-point? I think Hogan at 100 and Ted at 70 looks better than 5 and 4. The "form" rating tries to take consistency into account as well as anything else. Hogan's problem is that as the run goes on he becomes more and more formulaic, annoying and has fewer great matches. But you could reflect that by changing parameters. No reason why you couldn't run the formula across a given year. Then again, there is part of me -- the part of me paid every day to be an English lecturer who teaches literary theory -- that thinks this sort of quantification is sick and wrong. But I am happy to suppress that part of me as being some whiny limp-wristed liberal, at least for the purposes of this thread As to your final point, my other feeling is that these things do tend to even out. It's very unlikely to get a guy at talent rating 0 or 1 getting a 4 or 5 for meaningfulness or form. I can only think of one example (Big Daddy) and there are lots of questions to ask about how we'd rate his "meaningfulness". It does tend to be the case that these things sort themselves out ... but it's NOT always the case in wrestling that "cream will rise", which is why Hogan isn't the best wrestler who ever lived. Politics and other factors can override both talent and form.

It is a combination of push, memorable feuds and angles, importance to company and so on.* Hogan without doubt gets a full 5/5 rating for "meaningfulness" for his WWF run. This aspect of wrestling cannot be overlooked. It is part of what a worker is. As in any other walk of life, unfortunately, ability and talent aren't the only things considered. This matters because it decides what sorts of matches someone is going to have. It's basically impossible to make an argument for someone as an all-time great if they spent their entire career having heatless undercard matches. This is why it is one third of the formula. However, the formula is designed to be a system of built-in checks and balances. An "all timer" would be someone getting a rating of 13+. Let's see if Hogan get's such a rating. Base talent. This is Hogan's basic ability as a wrestler. If we were being generous we'd say this is 3. If we want to be stingy 2. Form. This is basically how many good matches the guy had and how consistently he had those good matches across the run. Hogan suffers here. Again generous would be 3, stingy 2. Meaningfulness is what I said there and we know that's a 5. So the generous Hogan score is 3+3+5 = 11. 11 is not an all timer score, it's a good score, but not all all-timer one. The stingy score is 9, which is even more far off. For someone's run in a place to be all time they need to score highly across the board. From what you've told me Buddy Rose in Portland is looking at a 14 or a 15. Flair's peak Crockett run is on a 14 or 15. The main reason for devising this was not to privilege any one thing as being the be all and end all when assessing someone's run somewhere. The base talent is a kind of cap: if someone has a base talent of 2, 12 is as good as they can ever get from a run. Form and meaningfulness can only go so far, they can't perform miracles. So if 13 is the bottom end "all timer" score for a given run, someone with a base talent of 2 can never be an all timer. I gave Bossman a 3 for that, and Ted a 4. I think that 3 recognises what you are saying, but there are good reasons for giving Ted a 4 recently discussed here. If you say Ted's a 3, then I can roll with that, but that makes Bossman a 2. Whatever the scores are, I think Ted is 1 notch above Bossman in meaningfulness stakes for the reasons outlined in that link. I like to think my approach to things is holistic. That is: attempting a balanced look at things that can take both big and small picture into account. The formula may seem reductive, but I think it works. For me to consider Bossman a "better worker" than Ted he'd have to score higher than him somehow in the formula. You can do that either by trying to increase Bossman's scores in the three categories, or lowering DiBiase's. I am prepared to listen to cases in each of those areas. I don't think you can say "Bossman is the better worker because here's 6 great matches he had at the Philly Spectrum". I think my view is taking more into account and getting a more realistic picture. * While mic work is not explicitly built into this, it is implied since MOST guys who will rate highly here, will also be good mic workers. However, it is not explicit because it's perfectly possible for someone to have few mic skills but still score highly here. And I didn't want to exclude this formula being applied to Japanese workers, because it can be.

It doesn't Will because that argument is not an either / or proposition and I talked in that thread about the need to move away from binary thinking: "Meaningfulness" does not negate the importance of depth, it complicates it. Both depth and meaningfulness are desirable. In an ideal world you want your roster to be deep and have every single guy on it involved in something "meaningful". I don't think anyone disputes that. The conclusion was that in a situation where one company has a smaller but more meaningful roster they might be able to achieve better results up and down the card than a massive roster full of big names that has "meaningless depth". But I would urge people not to take that conclusion too far and, as I argued, meaningfulness alone can't overcome everything in the long run. So for JCP it worked in 86, but you had diminishing returns in 87 and 88 to the point where Meltzer is almost hysterical calling out for new talent week after week. I think, ultimately, everyone agreed with that in the long run. Reply to Dylan forthcoming.

For the podcast we are planning to do an end-of-decade awards special to go through matches we've liked, rank workers, and so on. However, we have only been watching supercards, tv specials and Clash shows, and Crockett is a territory with a wealth of matches that took place on TV. Once we are the other side of Starrcade 89, and before Clash 10, we want to do a special show in which we look at about 20 notable matches that took place on TV in the period from 1983 to 1989. This is the last chance for assessments of certain guys to change before we finalise the awards. Help us come up with a list of stuff to watch. I've an idea I want to see more Slaughter in Crockett from 83. The long Midnight Express vs. Orginal Midnight Express TV match will be something else we'll need to see and some of the Windham matches. Looking for important stuff like that which will fill in some gaps. But this can't be much more than 20 matches, 25 max I'd say. Thanks in advance.

I think it is wrongheaded because it takes form as being the only criterion when assessing a guy's time in a given place. I would prefer a formula along the lines of base talent + form + positioning/ "meaningfulness". What is "meaningfulness"?, well it's there to mediate cases where you might have a very talented guy having good matches who isn't being pushed. It's Bobby Eaton on Saturday Night in the late 90s. Or an even more extreme case might be Buddy Rose doing job matches in WWF. Even if Rose is still a 5/5 for talent and even if he's on good form, his "meaningfulness" rating is a 1 or even a 0 and that's going to hurt the way you look at him. I think Ted's base talent and "meaningfulness" while in WWF are strong enough to overcome the form issue (and it's not like his form was completely terrible or anything). Or in other words, Bossman might have been on career form and might have had a decent push, but considering all three things together I still don't give him a chance of being called a "better worker" because Ted's base talent is just better than Bossman's. I stand by this as a way of rating runs. I would think about footballers in the same way. Fernando Torres might have been crap since 2008 but his base talent is still there and no amount of arguing or reasonably good form can make the Norwich striker Steve Morison a "better footballer" than him. The only way it could happen is that Morison somehow comes out and scores 30+ goals in a season while Torres is on woeful form. And even then, Torres would probably fetch a higher price than Morrson. In the Ted vs. Bossman scenario, it would be unfair to Bossman to say that he's the equivalent of a Steve Morison, but his WWF run also wasn't the equivalent of a 30+goal season while Ted's was also nowhere near close to being "woeful". In the rating system I've just devised, let's say Ted's a 4 talent, 3 for form and a 4 for "meaninfulness". Let's say Bossman is a 2 or a 3 for talent, 4 for form and a 3 for "meaningfulness". My view is that form is not the ONLY thing to consider when all things aren't equal. Between Ted and Bossman all things are not equal.

Where the Big Boys Play #34 – Clash of the Champions 6 Chad and Parv review Clash of the Champions 6: Ragin’ Cajun. In this episode: Wrestling Observer roundup from March 1989 including disciplinarian George Scott’s 13 new rules for the locker room and a look at Meltzer’s top 100 workers from then, tag match structure with two face-in-peril sequences, a first look at The Great Muta, Parv in liking matwork shocker, the Road Warriors’ 4-year streak of being unpinned, it’s Ranger Ross!, in-depth analysis of Flair vs. Steamboat including ‘the four faces of Flair’ theory, roundup of listener comments and some plugs and recommendations for recent podcasts by other people we like and forum activities.

Always thought those Spectrum and MSG shows were stuck in a timewarp, and not necessarily in a bad way.

Are you planning on an SNME watch through then?

Honkytonk Man was in the Midnight Express?!

OJ, which of these matches did you watch? http://www.coreystapes.com/dibiase.html And did you ever watch any of the Blue Blazer matches? I may have some time later to do the matches I promised I would but never did.

Matt D - been meaning to ask you for a while: why do you call threads "notes"? I think the Bossman argument is being somewhat overstated here, and is an example of people getting overexcited and carried away with reassessment. Bossman was never pimped as a great worker, Ted was, therefore he has no burden of expectation, therefore if you can think of a handful of good matches and performances that somehow adds up to a case -- and because Ted was not everything he was cracked up to be, he has less of a case. Doesn't seem very convincing to me. Also don't get me wrong, I like Bossman and think he was good as a heel and as a face, but 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. As for Bubba in Crockett, as Chad said, he seemed really green. To the extent it's hard to believe the guy who appears in WWF in 1988 is the same guy, night and day.

If the conclusion is that Bossman had a greater number of good to great matches in WWF than Ted, I can accept that as a conclusion. If the conclusion is that Bossman was a better worker than Ted in WWF I do not accept it and think it is an absurd claim to make.

The idea that Bossman was "better than Ted in the WWF" to me is insane and one I will neither countenance nor debate. This is not the thread for it either. If anything, it's a very good example of why matches shouldn't be your only metric when judging a worker's time in a company. But this thread is about Barry Windham.

I draw the line at Bossman.

Are you on the windup Matt?

What about Wrestlemania 9 OJ? He was also used a LOT either to turn people or be involved in their creation. For example, the Undertaker debut, the crowning of the Macho King. He's always kind of floating around as a big bad with a finger in the evil pie.

I stumbled on this in the March 27th 1989 Observer and thought it was topical: Interesting to see how much consensus changes over time, but I posted it because even Dave thought Windham was better than DiBiase in 89. I stress in 89 because 80-88 it's clear that he prefers Ted. I am amazed to see Bossman ranked above Hansen there, not that it is explained anywhere exactly what this list is.

One thing I've been struck by reading the WONs from 88 and 89 is that Meltzer doesn't just rate DiBiase, he doesn't just think he's one of the best in the world, he REALLY fucking rates him. Look at this sentence from March 7th 1988: "... I fully agree that DiBiase is the best wrestler in the WWF (and probably the best at this stage of his career than anyone who has worked for Titan in the past 15 years) ...." So he thinks he's better than Savage, and by implication of the parentheses there Backlund, Slaughter, Tito, Valentine and a whole bunch of other guys. It's very difficult to ignore his raging hard on for him during this period and it carries on well into 1989. Can people who have been reading Meltzer for years tell me if he ever EXPLAINS this anywhere? I know his opinion is not worth what it was these days, but it would be nice to see if he ever laid out a case for what he thinks Ted was THAT good.

I've seen a shit load of Flair in 85 from Will's Horsemen set as well as when he cropped up on various sets and going through the big shows for JCP. And there's still a hell of a lot of him in 85 I haven't seen. It's a very strong year by anyone's standards. I love that Sam Houston match. 89 feels like the marquee pick. Early 80s Mid Atlantic is something I really want to see more of. I was going to mention 87 but soup beat me to it. People don't talk about the Ron and Jimmy Garvin matches enough. 87 feels more like a great JCP year for Flair, 85 is a great traveling champ year.

Hated it Will, to the extent where I gave Williams my worst worker of the night "Billy Graham" award. Flat-haired skinny Koloff might be my all-time least favourite worker. I might need to re-watch Luger vs. Windham some time because I really don't remember it being all that good -- and it was only last week I watched it. Also, if I recall correctly, Windham wasn't selling a hand job there but he'd actually injured it. Meltzer gave that match ***3/4 and I don't think that's too far off. I would probably go slightly less at ***1/2 if I had to give a rating. I do take my comment back about the Mania IV match, obviously that isn't a ***3/4 match. But I do think those two have better matches to offer. Certainly I don't think it's true that Ted has no better WWF matches.

I really really don't think Windham vs. Luger is better than any of the Savage vs. DiBiase matches, including the one at Wrestlemania 4. I really don't. Each to his own I guess. I thought Clash 3 was really quite a shitty show all in all.

That match from Clash 4 is really good and feels like a dream match, I actually preferred Fantastics vs. Gilbert and Simmons from the same show, but along with the Clash 1 match, would probably be the best Barry match I've seen to date.

There needs to be more talk of his facials. He may have the best face in wrestling history.