JerryvonKramer

It's been expanded for decades. Hence the Flair vs Funk Bash match reference, which was on we always use to talk about when the subject came up: the post match was frankly better than the match and a big reason (mentioned or not mentioned) that some folks rated it really high. You might wanna have a little read of that thread cos that match is brought up, but with someone claiming the match is 5-star and post-match 1-star. Maybe some guys in 2016 with different takes from those in 89.

If you wanna expand more, jdw, there's some discussion of that exact topic (of whether or not to count post-match in ratings) here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/35447-how-important-is-the-finish-in-giving-a-match-five-stars/?p=5767162 Time length I'd say would have to be bell-to-bell. I think I was thinking of 2-out-of-3 fall one of those by the way, not entirely sure if I've seen the other one.

I've said it again and again, I'm an ECW fan. FMW is also one of the dearest promotion in my heart. I love Onita. And I'm a huge shoot-style fan. My favourite pro-wrestling match ever is Tamura vs Khosaka 30 mn draw from 98. And likewise, I think the nWo era Nitros are the apex of US pro-wrestling TV. I don't think I'm schizophrenic at all. Now talk about some stuff you don't like.

My answer to Loss (and to gordi's one point of objection) is as follows: 1. It is possible to like and appreciate many different styles of a thing. 2a. However, I am extremely sceptical of anyone's capacity to like and appreciate ALL styles of a thing. and 2b. In practice it is almost never the case that anyone likes or appreciates ALL stlyes of a thing. 3. As a corollary, some styles are actually antithetical, that is ideologically or aesthetically opposed. It is possible to like both sides of a given extreme, but it naturally (though not necessarily) follows that fans of extreme A tend not to be fans of extreme B and vice versa. To make this a bit more tangible, let's zoom to the early 1990s and consider Lou Thesz's vision of pro wrestling, Paul Heyman's vision and Vince McMahon's vision. Thesz was helping to promote UWFi, meanwhile Heyman was introducing barbed wire and flaming tables to wrestling, and all that while Vince was pushing clowns, garbage men, tax men, evil dentists, undead phenoms and whatever Adam Bomb was meant to be on his show. While liking one thing does not preclude you from liking the others, the reality on the ground tended to be that fans of any one of them had cause to disparage the others. ------------- So I guess, in the abstract, it is theoretically possible for someone to like and appreciate all styles, but in practice it is almost always the case that people have a preference for certain styles over other styles. And also: It tends to be the case in art that movements produce counter-movements and counter-counter movements which define themselves AGAINST each other. That is, they depend on, for their very existence, some sort of rejection of what has gone before. We're all very post-modern and eclectic now so we listen to bubble-gum pop alongside punk alongside new wave etc. as if there were no aethetic, political or ideological contradictions in so doing -- there are less stakes, I suppose, consumers gonna consume. But one of those movements has at is core a visceral rejection of mainstream values and art, so how much of a TRUE fan of the thing can one be if you don't share in that? I see my beloved 80s-and-early-90s WWF put down ALL the time, all of the time, on an almost daily basis as one of the go-to bases-of-comparison to put over some different style. People have always defined their identities not ONLY in terms of what they like but ALSO in terms of what they don't like. Championing one thing need not entail a rejection of another thing, but in practice it very very often does. See also, the entirety of history to this point.

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-boys-play-87-clash-of-the-champions-22/ Chad and Parv open the show by discussing some new PTBN features and the Last Battle of Atlanta before heading into WCW land in 1993 and Clash of the Champions 22: Wrestling Observer round up [0:21:01]: Arn Anderson / Erik Watts street fight angle, Watts / Mark Madden beef, Rick Rude on Kathie Lee Gifford, and Flairs return. Review of Clash of the Champion 22 [0:45:37]: Jesse's amazing suit, lets count the Thundercage drop outs, 2 Cold Scorpio takes local kids to school via the art of stepping in video package, Tony Atlas vs. Vinnie Vegas left-handed arm-wrestling contest, The Harley Race show, and farewell to Jim Ross and Bill Watts. End of Show Awards [1:53:05]

I think gordi and I ultimately think some very similar things here insomuch as what he said is very similar to something I said here: Judge blues from within blues traditions, lucha from within lucha traditions, cheeseburgers from within burger traditions. We agree on this. We also agree that there can be no universal set of guidelines with which to approach all music, all wrestling or all food. So we agree on that. I owe Loss a reply, so I will work on that and in the process also speak to gordi's other key point.

I did list Scott Walker so Brel got some due as a songwriter.

I don't disagree with that. Good critical insight is better than ranking or ratings, for sure. But let's pretend for a second that your person is writing these wonderful David Foster Wallace-esque essays on the joys of sushi, jazz, burgers etc., do you expect him to recognise the joys in all things or to find joys in all things? On the contrary, if he's going to be interesting at all there'll be other stuff which he finds irritating, or with which he doesn't connect, or whatever. In fact, the most entertaining criticism ever written (see Clive James on TV for example) tends to be in cases where the critic has found cause for complaint. As soon as you take the step of moving beyond a basic report of "joy" the whole process of evaluation proper starts. And then there comes the added pressure of consistency. So your Clive James or Robert Ebert or whoever over time develops a sense of the sorts of things he finds joy in and the sorts things he's going to rant about. I can't think of a famous critic worth his salt who didn't do this. But with it comes a championing of some things and a condemning and closing off of others. The demand to be able to see the good in ALL things, in all styles, just isn't realistic to the critical experience in any field to date. Some things are held as being good, others are written off rightly or wrongly. Without this, these is no critical discourse really, just bland expositions on people finding joy in sushi shops. Which, even if they were excellently written, would become exceedingly tedious after about a week.

Right, but even a review at its most basic has to point out why something is good or bad, and I'm not sure that it's possible to do that without making explicit or implicit reference to that which is beyond the realm of the text. If you review something praising it for certain qualities, at some level you are saying those qualities are good and desirable and that certain other qualities are not. Do you see a way around this? How can the individual review NOT do this? If it doesn't, it seems to me to become a little more soft and nubulous, more a case of "appreciating" the item under evaluation. And you end up with a system that can only speak in gushing praise (see also New Critcism).

Just as two little extras for listeners: 1. Critical Perspectives on Waluigi: https://theemptypage.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/critical-perspectives-on-waluigi/ 2. Included in the playlist but highlighting it here, something we didn't discuss ... Howard Finkel co-hosts Spotlight with Ian Mooney:

You've been reading my music list so far, is that true? What I will say though is that I'm broadly consistent in insisting that to understand blues you need to do so within the traditions of the blues, to understand hip-hop you have to come at it from within the genre not try comparing it to Bob Dylan or whoever. This is eclecticism because it leads to wide-ranging and varied tastes, but it isn't universality. I did have a go at making a criteria for that list which can speak across genres: But even then, by its nature, it is valorising some things at the expense of others. This process is in the very nature of taste. Taste is defined by discernment, literally speaking "the ability to judge well". Outkast make the list but Master P doesn't. To even to be able to make that call requires some understanding of hip-hop. But within it I'm still saying "this is really exceptional" and (to the extent I event thought about Master P) "this is pretty generic and not even worthy of noting". Same for blues guys, same for all the other people on the list. Plus you know I've de facto written off certain styles as being not my thing. Guess the interesting thing is what happens when you go across genres. I caught a lot of flak for putting Paul McCartney below certain rap acts, but (surprisingly) less so for having him as the top-rated solo Beatle, maybe my argument on that score was convincing, I dunno. But between the lines, it seems to me that the backlash I got on that derived mainly from the fact that some people don't see rap as being important period, or at any rate they consider the entire genre less important than Sir Paul's patchy solo career. Ultimate question though: how can we really make that call across genres? Can we? Can we compare the rap artist to the bluesman to the jazz cat to the folk singer/songwriter to the punk band? I can tell you what I did in making the music list: I initially made a number of separate more specialist lists comparing like with like and then on each of them drew a line under who I thought definitely should be making it. After that it got more "touch feel", and a case of "who felt right where". Still I'm not sure that I ever truly made the comparison across the genres. What makes Busta Rhymes good is completely different from what makes Wire good, etc. etc. And I also made some errors along the way (looking back, Art Brut and Girl Talk both probably should not have made it, oh well). We saw people use some similar techniques during GWE, when they were making lists of Japanese guys, Lucha guys, shoot guys, territory guys, modern guys and so on. And then using whatever means to put them all together. There is still no universality here. Even though there might be a lot of styles, you are still saying "I'm a puro fan, and within puro this is what I like", same with lucha, same with shoot style, same with territory guys, etc. And there surely comes a point where certain styles just aren't making the list. I want to bring you back to this and think again about it in terms of food: This process is in the very nature of taste. Taste is defined by discernment, literally speaking "the ability to judge well". Let us say at its most basic, taste in terms of food just comes down to five basic "styles": sweet, sour, salty, bitter, umami The novice taster, let us say a two- or a three-year old, might be able to distinguish between these. Often at that age they will like sweet things and maybe dislike bitter things. Do you see how even in that there is a "blocking off"? Sweet valorised at the expense of bitter? Let's pretend you have learned to appreciate all five tastes, even without that you surely prefer some sweet things to other sweet things, some bitter things to other bitter things, etc. You start to make judgements and define your tastes. And taste by its nature, as I've stressed, depends on writing off certain things. You cannot say something is good without also suggesting a certain other thing is bad. Of course, we here are PWO are less like the two-year child tasting chocolate for the first time and more like this character: https://youtu.be/_ASwLJ2eIEE?t=80 But surely even he, a master of taste, able to identify any wine in the world down to the precise vineyards ultimately must make judgements that valorises some wines at the expense of others. The idea of an all-accepting universal palette is completely and fundamentally at odds with the process of making value judgements. You cannot do both. We might be able to like foods of all five tastes, but very few of us would like all foods.

Episode 2: http://placetobenation.com/letters-from-kayfabe-2/ Allan and Parv step close to the very edges of “the cheese platter” as they go deeper into the world of WWF. 1. The Mailbag: Hogan Fist Helmet / brown-hair Dino Bravo in late 91-early 92 / Ian Mooney 2. The Event Center with JT Rozzero: Jointly promoted WWF and WAR card from September 15, 92 3. The Long Topic: The changing look of the WWF from 1983 to 1993 To write in to the mailbag, tweet @allan_cheapshot or @JerryvonK Follow along on YouTube:

This is something we've discussed over a number of years now. I've gone back and forth on it over that time, and I think I have now made up my mind (see title). Around a year ago, some might recall that I drew up these: These are all things that I still value incredibly highly, but I also recognise that they cannot and indeed should not apply to every scenario or context. There can't be a universal standard because different times and places have different demands. An audience for an indie show in 2011 expect to see high spots, a certain amount of high impact offense and innovation in the moves; if the match is being billed as a kind of "dream match", then they are going to have expectations of a certain type of epic complete with exciting nearfalls, false finishes down an increasingly hot finishing stretch. In a different promotion, let's say one from around 2001, they might want to see more weapons, blood, violence and spectacle. Maybe a flaming table or two. The workers, if they care about their crowds, can only really work towards what they want. So if they want blood, they'll get blood, if they want somersaults, they'll get somersaults. If the GWE taught me anything it was that it is virtually impossible for fans to value every single style without being a complete relativist. As soon as you put your flag down (as per the image there), and say "these are the things I value", you start to block off what is and is not acceptable to you, and invariably you cannot be neutral on the question of different styles. In some ways this post is directed at Loss, because I think he has a certain vision of having a truly universal, hollistic view of wrestling that can appreciate any match, any style on its own terms. I question the extent to which that is possible without effectively having no values. How can one be high on things that appear to be diametrically opposed without making significant alterations in what you are looking for? I think of something like Dragon Gate, where flippy-dos are at a premium. I'd argue it is not possible to look at a match from there and something like an old NWA title match with the same head on and like both. You'd effectively need a "Dragon Gate head" and an "NWA head" to get anything out of either. In both cases you need to relativise your values in order to give the thing a high rating. Ricky Steamboat never did somersaults, so if you went into one of his matches with a Dragon Gate head on, you'd probably find them extremely wanting. Some might say, "yes, well, I value psychology and storytelling no mater the promotion". But it seems to me that psychology is not valued at a premium in certain promotions (if you don't want Dragon Gate as the example, pick another), so how can it be fair to attack them for it? And if that IS fair, then it would also be fair to take marks off Steamer for his lack of flips. As soon as you take the step of saying "well, psychology is important and flips aren't", you are making a mark in the sand and a value statement, and all of a sudden you can't really give a "fair" assessment to the flippy-non-pyschology promotion. You're effectively writing off the style. I don't see any way around this. There can be no universal criteria because every style comes with its own built-in rules and expectations and there can be no truly holistic view because as soon as you define any value you effectively "block off" a style. This post is directed towards Loss because he and I have discussed this for hours in the past, but anyone welcome to chime in.

Just as an aside, Baba would never book Abby to go 45 minutes. Longest Abby match I've seen is around 30 mins singles vs. Terry Funk (1980). The stone-cold classic with Abby/Sheik vs. Funks in 79 is close to 30 as well I think, but legit 4.75 great match with outrageous heeling. The longer tags are generally Baba / Jumbo vs. Funks or any of the other international teams that come in. Guys like Billy Robinson, sometimes Bock, sometimes Mil and Dos Caras. I think a lot of those matches in 75-9 time frame are really good and worth watching. It's a great all-star international promotion then, anyone who was anyone came through, and you get to see guys with enormous reps show what they can do over the course of 40+ minutes. A lost art in some ways. There's a late version of it in the 80s too, I'd point to Terry Funk and Dory Funk Jr vs. Stan Hansen & Terry Gordy (8/31/83) as a truly excellent match (5-star) that goes lonnnng. Generally I think I prefer the long 70s AJPW tags to the longer singles bouts a la Dory-Inoki 69 which get really clogged down in matwork and send me to sleep, I can't do 50s/60s mat classics a la Thesz, it's just too boring. With four guys you can tell a great well-paced story with action and high points over 40+ minutes. For my money, the Funks, Baba, Jumbo and other workers from the 70s were FAR better at going 40+ than Misawa, Kawada or Kobashi, far far better. Because it played to their strengths better. Kawada and co seem like they are tremendous over 30 minutes, but the style struggles to go for 45+, they only manage to really knock it out of the park a few times when the clock gets up to that level (from memory one of the Jumbo 6-mans in that time range). At least in my view.

I feel like a lot of the better WWF matches from the golden period slot in here. Ted / Savage Ted / Bret 89 Ted / Dustin Ted / Shawn Ted / Hogan Steiners / Money Inc Jake / Savage Flair / Savage Flair / Perfect Bret / Perfect Tito / Perfect Brainbusters / Hart Foundation Tito / Valentine (Nov 88) Valentine / Garvin Hogan / Slaughter Hogan / Earthquake Hogan / Schultz Hogan / Race Hogan / Orndorff Hogan / Funk Hogan-JYD / Funks Steamboat / Orton Jr

I'm not convinced there is a bias toward longer matches. Give most people a choice between a 45-minute AJPW tag from the 70s and a 10-minute double juice brawl and I think they choose the brawl a lot of the time. Pete and I have talked in the past about how 60-minute broadways aren't that well appreciated these days. I've complained in the past that a match has gone on too long and by the same token that a match needed more time. Context is a factor: you wouldn't want a wild brawl going much longer than 15 mins, NWA-style, AJ-style or NJ-style all demand more time. "Purpose" seems to be a good word to consider.

Oh yeah, and it turns out running the Superdome when you can only get a crowd of 12,000 there isn't the most cost-effective idea: George Scott eat your heart out.

Current roll call of champions:

AWA Championship Wrestling, May, Week 4, 91: Must remember to fire Big Daddy at some point. Useless now I'm not running the UK shows. Highest rated segment I've ever seen. The Mega Bucks reuniting went down a storm here. Sunday Night Wrestling on MTV, May, Week 4, 91: Oh dear, oh dear. Yakuza is going to get over whether this crowd like it or not! This match was a disaster. Especially because of this: Weak ass main event, but the PPV is on right after, so this is kind of a warm up show. I tried to prop up this awful card with a hype video for Ted vs. Steamer. Even the hotness of that story couldn't really save this shitstorm. Supercard at the Superdome, May, Week 4, 91: So for PPV events, both AWA and MTV brands can have matches on the same card. At least for the time being. SD Jones getting a title shot in 1991 is something. Regal's best match for a while too. In one of those wrestling decisions that makes no sense, Bruno subs the SSTs with The Wild Samoans, cos, y'know, what's the difference? Yakuza will get over whether they like it or not! [/Vince Sr] Neither Martel nor Sanatana were happy about this, but I need them as singles guys. I also might send Martel over to MTV to feud with Regal a bit. MTV needs more over workers in general. Finish here was the Adnan throws in the towel and the ref calls for the bell as if Backlund submitted. Call-back to 83. Steamer goes into the match with his ribs taped after the Andre attack. Best match put on by this company so far. Steamer is on absolute fire having 3-4 classics every week in different companies. He's having a 1985-Flair sort of run. A card almost entirely propped up by its main event. And that was the blow off. Ongoing concerns are building up MTV brand, which has gotten off to a v. poor start and making something more exciting happen on the undercard.

Randy Savage vs. Ted DiBiase, 6/25/88 MSG

AWA Championship Wrestling, May, Week 3, 91: Pity the Fool *Mr. T interviews Bob Backlund about his recent his recent run-ins with the Alliance Against America, and the Iron Sheik's title win last week. Backlund is backing Marcus Bagwell to beat the Iron Sheik in his title shot tonight* *The Orient Express, Tanaka and Sato, have a new member: Yakuza. He's dressed in a very sharp suit, and it appears he's going to wrestle in his shirt and tie.* Iron Sheik even had to cheat badly to beat Bagwell. Setting up for Backlund vs. Iron Sheik at PPV. Tremendous match! Things ticking along okay. You'll notice Steamboat is not on these shows. He's doing a bit of AWA Universal Champ touring. Faced Mutoh in Japan for NJPW (92) and Konnan in Mexico for CMLL (83). He can come and have 4.5+ star matches for me soon. ------- Sunday Night Wrestling on MTV, May, Week 3, 91: So maybe putting Akira Maeda in a suit, calling him "Yakuza" and having him join the Orient Express wasn't the best idea I ever had? Match was no better. It's going to take Maeda some time to get over with the US audience. *Miss Elizabeth is standing in the locker room ready to interview Butch Reed, who has a ghettoblaster over one shoulder playing loud music. The track booming out is "New Jack Hustler" by Ice T.* Elizabeth: Butch, would you mind turning that down so we can do our interview? Reed: For you lady, o' course. Elizabeth: Well Butch Reed, thank you. How do you feel to be working on the new MTV brand of wrestling? Reed: I am thrilled, y'know'what I'm sayin'. I am DOWN with MTV, yo. And I done gone called all my homies, and they is all thrilled too. Ain't that right 2 Cold? Ain't that right 2 Fly? Come on in from the hood boys. *Elizabeth smiles innocently as she is suddenly surrounded by five muscle-bound black men: Reed himself, 2 Cold Scorpio, 2 Fly Gemini, Big Daddy V and "Soulman" SD Jones.* Reed: Miss Elizabeth, yo, lemme introduce you to the whole crew, you down with that? Elizabeth: Well alright Butch ... Reed: This here is 2 Cold Scorpio. He is one bad mofo. He an do a double twist in the air and still somersault on the way down. You ain't NEVER seen a bad ass bro like 2 Cold before yo. And now, and now, this is 2 Fly Gemini! You ain't never seen a guy fly like Gemini. And then, let's go OLD SCHOOL yo, this is the SOULMAN, he brings soul to this group. And, finally, Big Daddy V. Ain't no brother ever gonna wanna mess with V. I seen him take a man's head before and crush it just like a grape. You know why? Some fella was tryin' a steal his Twinkie! Don't never try to take the man's twinkie from him. Ha ha ha ha. And we, we roll from town to town, and people say "there go them BOOMBOX BROTHERS. You know why? Cos we is banging Ice T hard in '91 yo! Come on, let's bring that New Jack Hustle back to the boom. YEAH. *Reed puts the volume right back up as "New Jack Hustler" plays loud from the boombox. 2 Cold and 2 Fly nod their heads. SD Jones shows he still has some rhythm and Big Daddy V doesn't move from behind his shades.* Incidentally, here are those tournament brackets Bruno promised: Regal's matches have been very poor of late. Not as bad as this though ... At least the fireball was a little more over. Simply put, an atrocious show. The MTV brand has been pretty dismal so far. Partly it's because no one is over.

The reason people dislike Mascaras is just cos he's selfish and never drops a pinfall. I think he has a lot of good performances in the 70s though.

I just strongly object to anyone calling one of the hardest working NWA champions of all time "lazy", that's all.

Sunday Night Wrestling on MTV, May, Week 2, 91: Cruise: Hello, boys and girls, and welcome to SUNDAY NIGHT WRESTLING ON MTV!!! I'm here with my co-host, TAZZ! Tazz: Well thank you Crispy Cruise, and I am delighted to be bringing you wrestling from MTV. Cruise: That's CHRIS Cruise. Tazz: If I say your name is "Crispy", it's "Crispy", you got it? Cruise: Right, right, over now to AWA President, Mr. Nick Bockwinkel. Bockwinkel: Thank you Mr. Cruise, and ladies and gentlemen, I am here to announce publically, by the power invested in my by the AWA Board of Directors. That the representative of the American Wrestling Alliance tasked with overseeing the law here on Sunday Night Wrestling on MTV is ... He's a man with a long and distinguished history in this great sport ... A living legend ... Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Bruno Sammartino! Bruno: Well, thank you Nick, and thank you to all these good people. Bockwinkel: What stance are you going to take, might I ask, as the new AWA Commissioner here on MTV? Bruno: I like good, clean wrestling, you understand? I want to see more scientific wrestling. And I'm going to call it down the line, as I see it. If I see people breaking the rules, y'know, if I see people cheating. That's the sort of thing I will come down hard on. I made my career fighting fair and square in that ring, y'know, and I want to see all of the young up and comers following that example. Bockwinkel: It's an admirable goal Mr. Sammartino, an admirable goal ... Bruno: And as my first act as AWA Commissioner for MTV, I'd like to call out here please, the current MTV Heavyweight Champion, Lord Steven Regal. Come on out your lordship. *Regal comes out making faces and looking shift. Lord Jerry von Kramer is with him* Bruno: In recognition of you being the MTV champion, here is a NEW belt. Defend this with the honour and pride of a champion. *Regal considers the new belt. He sees the "MTV" logo on it and grimmaces slightly. He looks at Lord von Kramer who shakes his head slightly in disdain. Regal mutters to himself, but accepts the belt and walks back down the aisle.* Bruno: And secondly. Here are another new set of championships. The Brand New MTV Tag titles! Bruno: These titles are currently have no holders. And there will be a tournament between the four highest ranked MTV teams to decide on who that will be. NEXT WEEK, I will announce who has qualified for this tournament. *Tribal drums seem to shake the building to its rafters. In a menacing war ritual, FIVE fearsome Samoans come down the aisle, including the huge Kokinka Maximum. They ae led by Capt. Lou Albano, who gets into the ring and takes the mic* Albano: MTV! Hello MTV! Of course, right back to the days of David Wolff and Cyndi Lauper, I was instrumental on making this channel what it is today. It's good to be home. It's good to be back. I MADE MTV WHAT IT IS TODAY. And in the world of professional wrestling, I'm known the world over for managing TAG TEAM champions. And my original champions are right here with me. Afa and Sika, The Wild Samoans! *Afa and Sika each seem to be chewing on some sort of chicken carcus* Albano: But my old friends have been busy since you saw them before. They have been following their INSTINCTS if you get my drift! And lo and behold, Samu and Fatu! The Samoan Swat Team! Leading the family into Generation X! Into the MTV generation. The Generation CREATED by yours truly Lou Albano. *The camera zooms on Kokinka Maximus* Albano: And now behold my SECRET WEAPON, well, that's if anyone can keep a FIVE HUNDRED POUND beast of a man a secret. This is ... the man who put that runt Gagne Jr, what was his name? Greg, yeah Greg. That man who broke his leg and put him out of his misery ... Kokinka Maximums!!! *Kokinka frowns and looks fearsome* Albano: With this LEGION of Samoan warriors behind me, I will vow to capture all of the gold here in MTV, the place I built! Come on, I dare anyone to come and face these men! A Cuppa with Lord Al Lord Al: This week, there is no guest. Sometimes I like to enjoy the peace and quiet of a nice cup of tea and ruminate on the success of my good friend, Lord Steven Regal, the MTV Heavyweight Champion. *Lord Al sits and sips tea for several moments, enjoying himself. He then remembers the cameras are still rolling.* Lord Al (scrambling): Oh, ahem, uh, yes, over now back to the action. Well that totally bombed ... I might have to adjust some of my settings for the MTV brand. I'm not sure if "risque" is what I want, probably more towards "cult". It might take time to build up some of these youngsters, and Regal might not be yet ready to carry a main event like this. Need to keep building him and others up.

Dory is not lazy! He was just of that more shoot-y sort of school, like Bob Backlund whereby he doesn't always look as vulnerable as he might because he was meant to be legit. In a match like this, against a guy like Mil who is sometimes known for being uncooperative, he's going to stamp his authority a bit on his opponent and ensure he knows that he's going to have to struggle in order to get anything from the match. He might lean on a guy like Mascaras a bit with his bodyweight. It's a different way of working, not lazy, just a different mentality from a time when guys had to struggle for every move. It's why I've said Dory was one of the last of the 60s-style workers whereas Terry is very similar to Harley Race or Ric Flair in that he works a more action-and-movement orientated style. All that said, while I've seen Dory and Terry work Mil a fair few times, I don't recall seeing this match. Is it new on NWA Classics?