JerryvonKramer

I didn't see guys saying Technical Ted was "saddled" with Rotunda in that thread. I feel Windham is a guy who is given a lot more passes than people allow to others. Then again, it seems that mostly everyone prefers Windham matches than me -- people are really talking about that Sting match from Clash 3 and that Luger match from Chi-Town? I didn't think much of either of them, although did think Barry's individual performance in the Clash 3 match was very good. I didn't even think Windham/Flair was the best match on the card for Crockett Cup 87. And how come it's Bigelow's fault that that match isn't much cop? We've talked so much in recent times about why smoothness and execution and those sorts of things aren't the be all and end all, but Barry to me always seems like a guy who is just smooth, just really natural and good, but not much more. I don't see, for example, what his case for being a top-20 80s US worker would be over Technical Ted. To me, Ted can overcome some of the shortcomings and limitations of the WWF style through character work. A consummate heel through and through. He can work almost as well in that setting as he did back in Mid-South. I don't see Barry being strong in the character stakes. I don't see him being great at much beyond smoothness and execution. People are invited to tell me why I'm wrong, that's what the microscope is all about. I will also get round to seeing some of the TV matches soon. Honestly though, as Chad and I are wrapping up the 80s going through the PPVs and Clashes, I'd easily rate Ron Garvin over him.

Would it be fair to say shoe, that for whatever reason, Windham's best stuff -- at least in Crockett -- happened on TV rather than big shows or Clashes? I mean aside from that awesome tag with Luger vs. Arn and Tully at Clash 1, I don't think he has any matches breaching my top 10 for the decade and I realise that could be because we haven't looked at TV matches beyond Clash and "specials" like Super Towns.

I think you're right on that in the main part OJ, but to me meaningless matches against Snuka and Beefcake on major PPVs in 89 is "lying fallow". Would you agree that he was kept strong enough from 88 to 91 to never be less than #3 heel in the company basically until Flair came in? I'll give you one example of this in 1990 when he was clearly positioned *I think* above Mr. Perfect in the general pecking order during his involvement in the Texas Tornado feud. My thought has always been that that shows that Ted is positioned above the entire IC division, even if he doesn't have a main event programme going on with Hogan or whoever. If you click on some of those links there, you'll find me arguing with jdw (in the main) that Ted was kept as a "top heel" for most of that time. jdw argues that after 88 he's basically a mid-card act (which I think is a perception that a lot of people share). If I was make an analogy, DiBiase was the WWF equivalent of like a R'as Al-Ghul in Batman's universe. Batman might be dealing with Poison Ivy this week, or the Penguin that week, but R'as is still out there somewhere and he's a major deal. Savage as Macho King was also in that sort of mould (for the sake of comparison, let's say he was The Joker). They were A-list villains in the rogues gallery. Something like Earthquake's run in 1990 would be the equivalent of a one-shot caper with Bane or Clayface or someone like that -- sure big threat in the short term, but not A-list nemeses. I think that works.

I feel I'm more down on Barry than basically anyone else. I don't see, for example, how he was a "great heel", or even a "great face". Great at mechanics and wrestling fundamentals, sure, but not convinced he was a great heel or face. Up to 1989 so far in Crockett he always feels like a guy who can under deliver on any given night. I'm not as high on his Flair matches as most, and other matches which feel like they should be good on paper don't come to fruition -- the Bam Bam Bigelow match being only the most recent example of quite a few. I remember his 91-2 stuff when he was working with Dustin Rhodes and feuding with members of the DA being pretty good, but all-in-all in my mind the jury is still out on him. I don't see this all-time great worker that he's cracked up to be and that's been my feeling for a long time.

I hope you realise that from now on I'm ONLY going to call you Mr. Sorrow. I also think that while I agree with the general concept of "meaningless depth", I don't buy that people don't care about names AT ALL. People do care about names. You might not have, but are you representative of the entire audience? I don't believe that Orndorff-Muraco played ZERO role in getting 16,000 people to the Nassau that night. You've treated it as virtually the same as Jake Roberts vs. George Welles, we both know that's not entirely true. I've said before that my aim in arguments is not a win-loss thing, it's to come to some understanding for the greater good. People are prone to push arguments to their logical extreme, to convert complex arguments into simplistic binaries. Nuance doesn't sell. I think the picture is not as black and white as it is being painted, even if I agree with the gist of the conclusion.

shoe - let me get this right, Hogan and Bossman would have 3 different matches in Houston. Night 1 - match before intermission Night 2 - angle Night 3 - blow off Is that right? If so, what is "main eventing" night 1?

Can someone explain to me why Flair's micro is bad? When I think back on Flair matches I've seen in the past year, I tend not to think about the high spots but the little things. Most often for me it's the transition into offense and what I've talked about before: his switching up of gears. Does anyone think Bret switching through his gears is better than Flair? Who does that better than Flair? Is there anyone? I often think about the intensity and violence he brings the moment he gets on top: the Luger match at Starrcade 88 has it, the Jimmy Garvin cage match has it. That's the stuff that stays with me much more than the Flair flip, the flops and so on. Some matches make me think of extended bouts of chop suey, and when I think of the Steamboat matches I always picture that long, long standing vertical suplex as well as the butterfly suplex he busts out (just for those matches). But most of the time, it's little things Flair will do, small variations on his usual stuff, or differences in his attitude or mood or whatever that make certain matches stand out. It's one of the reasons I don't like the Sting matches, because nothing like that stands out about them. To me, they just seem like a string of typical Flair spots thrown together and strung out for however long with a few Gorilla Press Slams and splashes thrown in. They don't interest me. Most Flair matches I've seen aren't like that. I think because Flair's style is to be the theatrical showman, it's easy to assume that he's a macro guy, but he's done all sorts of unique things during individual matches that have stuck in my mind. I do think there's a perception that "the little things" mean Billy Robinson cranking on someone's neck and positioning himself in such a way that a counter is not possible -- Flair's little things might be shouting abuse at Ricky Morton about his nose before rubbing his face in the mat, or it might be thrusting his pelvis at Precious, or it might be stopping in the middle of an offensive stretch to shout at a guy in row 3, or it might be flipping a switch and deciding it's time to decimate someone's knee. Flair's a "big" performer but that doesn't mean everything he does is macro. Some of the stuff might be loud or even unsubtle, but it's still micro structurally speaking, none of the things I've mentioned there are high spots or finishes.

Two more things looking at that data. 1. Seems bizarre that Papa Shango would headline 59 shows in 1992, so I looked up to see what those matches would be. Vast majority of them are jobs to The Ultimate Warrior around the horn with a sprinking of losses to Bret Hart and The Undertaker, but they also inclide: Papa Shango pinned Brian Costello at 2:13 with the reverse shoulderbreaker Papa Shango pinned Victor Reed at 1:34 with the reverse shoulderbreaker They don't look very main event-y. Looking at those cards, I didn't know Jim Brunzell was still around in 92. 2. Going back to an earlier argument in this thread, Dylan look at this: Ted Dibiase: 287 matches (1979 to 1993) Sgt Slaughter: 282 matches (1980 to 1994) Jake Roberts: 282 matches (1986 to 1996) Ken Patera: 278 matches (1972 to 1988)

Other than SNME, how often did Hogan take the middle match of a show rather than the last one?

Loss, I went back to find this and, rather embarrassingly, I've brought it up at least 5 times as a talking point: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...0&p=5512692 http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...0&p=5502796 http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...0&p=5488815 http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...0&p=5472796 http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...0&p=5477323 My argument is that they were gearing up for another main event run for DiBiase in 91 right around the time Flair came in when those plans got nixed. For someone who has followed his career as closely and obsessively as me, it's impossible not to notice a tangible re-push for him when Sherri comes in. This yearbook will help to see if what I'm saying is true or not. DiBiase was a guy Vince used in rotation -- he'd have a push (88) then stay fallow for a while (89) then another push (Jake/Bossman feud) then fallow for a while (Zeus stuff, I guess), then another push (Dusty feud / Virgil). My view is that he was being primed for another go on top at that stage in the Sherri run). Through all that time I don't think he's ever less than #3 heel in the company.

I am in the awkward position here of generally being on Matt D's side of this argument as a guy who has been harping on about context for the past 2 years, while being on Loss's side of the argument in thinking Flair is the best, although I don't know if "great matches" have ever been my metric. I'll sit this one out, but just noting now that I'm an interested observer and am keen to see how it will turn out.

Bobby Eaton is the only guy I've seen with at least 3 different backbreaker variations, this would be a 4th.

I think you guys did really well to stick to time while getting that much out of him. Honestly, I think any one of us could probably sit and ask him questions for 10 hours straight and not be done.

I really enjoyed this and definitely you two should be proud of yourselves to say you got a 3-hour interview out of Dillon, where he was that candid, open and interesting. He might be the best wrestling interviewee there is because he goes so in-depth and it helps when the interviewers aren't some idiot trying to get mindless shoot comments. The stuff about Vince and the way he worked was very insightful. I don't think I appreciated how ahead of the curve he was even as far back as 1992 -- we can argue about whether the way wrestling has changed is for better or for worse, but Vince seemed to know even back then where things would be in a decade. Someone who just knows his trade inside and out. And the contrast with Bischoff couldn't have come through any clearer than it did in this interview. The thinking about Hogan-Flair and the thinking in general, demonstrates that Vince was really on the ball in the way I don't always see him credited for. We can disagree with his decisions, but it's nice to know how much reasoning he had behind them. The Jarrett stuff was interesting too, I didn't know he actually came in to replace Vince's role and it was interesting that Dillon credits him with showing Vince that you could beyond away from the Hogan prototype. Finally, before I listened to this -- and I've listened to quite a few Dillon shoots in the past -- I don't think I realised what a big player he was in the office. I knew he was involved, but not to the extent where he was Dusty's righthand man and then Vince and Patterson's. Imagine being a fly on the wall at some of those weekend meetings at Vince's condo.

Haven't even ordered my 91 set yet, but one of the little things about this match I always remember is that it's one time where ol' Technical Ted was put over really strong. He's a fucking beast in this match and basically takes out 3 guys on his own. Always struck me as a bit odd considering how long he'd spent mainly getting his ass kicked. It may well be the most Ted gets out of any PPV match offense-wise, unless there's an early round WM4 match that's escaping my mind.

I just laughed out loud Dylan, I love that on this forum we can talk about these sorts of things and come to a conclusion where "meaningless depth" exists as a concept in wrestling, it's what makes this place good. If you overlook the practicalities of injury, running more towns, and things like that, then I would agree that in 85, 86 and most of 87 the depth was meaningless for WWF. And certainly in 1999 for all intents and purposes it was meaningless for WCW. I think Vince and co really learned how to work with a large roster in 88 and for a stretch of about 3-4 years did a very good job and making most guys on the card mean something ... even Virgil and Duggan getting squashed by Yokozuna had in-story purposes. If there's a larger lesson to be drawn from this whole conversation though it's that creativity in wrestling can often be borne out of pressure and stacked rosters can lead to complacency and waste. JCP did more with less in 86. WWF did more with less in 98 and 99. I'm happy with that as a takeaway.

My argument isn't with Loss -- I don't think he's been making the same argument -- it's with tomk, Dylan and Johnny Sorrow who have been arguing that WWF's roster while bigger, in fact, wasn't deeper. I am saying it was deeper. That is only point I have been making. Their argument is that positioning and booking makes the stacked mid-card largely irrelevant and negates depth. My argment is that it doesn't. Nitro era WCW were mentioned, easily they had a deeper roster than WWF in 1997. Bobby Eaton and Chris Adams can be buried down on Saturday Night, but they are still Eaton and Adams. They are still good wrestlers, and still relatively speaking stars -- and just 2 of about the 100 biggest names in wrestling who were on WCW's roster at that point. The argument from tomk, Dylan and Johnny Sorrow says that because these guys aren't doing anything meaningful the roster isn't really deep, it's just big. My argument is that it's deep and there's no way around saying that it is. As I see it, that has been the key issue at stake in this thread for the past few pages. Loss's "deeper roster / deeper lineup" post doesn't sum it up because if you drill down Loss is conceding a point that tomk, Mr. Waco and Mr. Sorrow have not been prepared to concede. We may have reached the point where we need to agree to disagree. This has never been about saying WWF were better or JCP were better. I think they both had their place.

Why does that matter if they're not running the same town every night? There are actually three reasons: 1. Because they were in the business of business, not in the business of putting on the best possible card every night. WWF could run more towns, that's both two towns on the same night and more towns period. Flair might have been superman, but even he couldn't wrestle 356 days a year, nor could Arn or Tully or any of the other key people. 2. Key person risk, see also Magnum TA. 3. What happens when it is the same town in 2 months' time? And again in 4 months' time? And again in 6 months? In a way Memphis is a total mystery to me and it's a minor miracle that kept people coming back to the same place week after week -- I don't know what their mixing up the guys to "new meat" ratio was like.* But in any case JCP wasn't Memphis, it was a national promotion and WWF was the competition. It's not just towns but TV too. Tomorrow I will do the 20-night comparison. * I'd like to mention also as an addendum, that the old territories, historically, were generally built on CONSTANT MOVEMENT of guys, not on static rosters. Unless you were a territory lynchpin, guys made their living coming and going.

But guys in JCP got stale or ran out of steam, RnR and Fantastics got booed after a while, Road Warriors went kinda flat after a while, everyone had had enough of Dusty by 1987, Nikita Koloff fizzled, even the Horsemen started to get stale. Let's not pretend JCP were so great at mixing up the guys that they actually overcame the thinness of their roster.

I literally don't know what this means or what the point of it is The line-up is some variation of the Horsemen with or without Flair on top, a Midnights vs. R n R match, and a few other repeated matches night after night after night. That's all it is saying. JCP put on better cards because they had to use the same handful of guys over and over again. See soccer analogy about first XIs vs. squad rotation for more. This at least is my theory, as I said I will put it to the test.

Presentation is important and I don't doubt in 86 JCP were doing a lot better than WWF in terms of pushing midcard feuds (my view is that by 89, WWF were REALLY on it up and down the card and stay that way until at least 92, where almost every match at PPVs had big storylines and "meaning"), but I don't think it can perform miracles. Also, I am interested in the extent to which that talent was expendable. Earlier I said this: I will take a look at 20 cards in succession of the same period from both WWF and JCP. Sticking with 1986 because I think it's giving Crockett the fairest fighting chance.

I don't disagree with that Loss, but the point that that deeper lineup was basically the same night after night has either been ignored or artfully side-stepped.

I feel the thesis being advanced in this thread is far too simplistic to serve. It seems to be willfully overlooking the fact that WWF was killing JCP all around the country -- or if it isn't, it's saying that success was 99% down to Hogan being on top. I am not saying 1-0 is a way to assess wrestling cards, I was using it as a way to assess DEPTH. No amount of you saying Valiant vs. Jones was a well booked feud that fans were into and that Orndorff and Muraco were booked to be meaningless midcarders can change the fact that IF say JCP had Orndorff or Muraco, they 1. WOULD be on the card, and 2. WOULD be booked as bigger stars than Valiant and Jones. The Patterson / Brisco comparison is nonsensical. Orndorff and Muraco were not so far removed from their pushes in 1986 to warrant comparison with those two in 1999. I must now summon Solie.org NWA roster for September 1986 was as follows: "The Nature Boy" Ric Flair, "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes, Nelson Royal, "Beautiful" Bobby Eaton, Ivan Kolkoff, Hawk, Animal, Nikita Koloff, "The Enforcer" Arn Anderson, Tully Blanchard, Ricky Morton, Robert Gibson, "Hands of Stone" Ronnie Garvin, The Barbarian, Sam Houston, Chris Champion, Sean Royal, Barry Windham, "Sweet" Stan Lane, "The Total Package" Lex Luger, Ray Candy, Commando #2, The Warlord, "Ravishing" Rick Rude, Manny Fernandez, Kendall Windham, Kevin Sullivan, Michael "P.S." Hayes, Big Bubba Rogers, Dick Murdock TOTAL ROSTER: 30 The WWF roster for September 1986 was as follows: The Fabulous Moolah, George "The Animal" Steel, Andre the Giant, Pedro Morales, "Adorable" Adrian Adonis, Tony Garea, The Magnificent Muraco, The Iron Shiek, Hulk Hogan, The Junkyard Dog, Tito Santana, Lelanie Kai, Judy Martin, Moondog Rex, Moondog Spot, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Gregg "The Hammer" Valentine, Mike Rotundo, Nikolia Volkoff, "The Giant" John Studd, "Mr. Wonderful" Paul Orndorff, Brutus Beefcake, King Kong Bundy, Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat, "Cowboy" Bob Orton, Davey Boy Smith, The Dynamite Kid, Steve Lombardi, Sivi Afi, Haku, Toma, Hillbilly Jim, B. Brian Blair, "Jump'in" Jim Brunzell, Barry O, Brett "Hitman" Hart, Jim "The Andvil" Neidhart, Terry Funk, Dory Funk Jr., Randy "Macho Man" Savage, "Leaping" Lanny Poffo, Corporal Kirshener, Hercules Hernandez, Jauques Rougeau, Raymond Rougeau, Jake "The Snake" Roberts, "Golden Boy" Danny Spivey, Jimmy Jack Funk, Billy Jack Haynes, "The King" Handsome Harley Race, "The Natural Butch Reed, The Honkytonk Man, "Superstar" Billy Graham, Paul Roma, Jim Powers, The Super Machine, The Big Machine, Kamala the Uygandan Giant, Sika the Savage Samoan, "The Birdman" Koko B. Ware. TOTAL ROSTER: 59 I feel almost spent making such an obvious argument that the one roster is much deeper than the other one. Why this stubborn refusal to accept it? Context can only change so much. It can't make Paul Jones into a bigger star or a better wrestler than Paul Orndorff in 1986. Sorry it just can't. Imagine a scenario: One day in 86 Orndorff wakes up and he's been fired. The same day Jones wakes up and he's been fired. Who's phone is ringing harder? Who's getting more offers? Is WWF offering Jones a job in New York? Are JCP offering Orndorff a job headlining their very next show? Well? There's only so much context, booking and (mis)management change. Depth is depth, quality is quality and stars are stars.

My feeling is that Loss kinda needs to make you a sub-forum at this point.