JerryvonKramer

The narrative is not always the same and even if it is the details are different. I said it in the other thread, Flair was an instinctual, organic sort of worker, storylines develop in his matches almost by accident rather than design. That doesn't mean that they can't be compelling. I am not going down the road of discussing whether Flair was the same in every match again, I've sworn a vow of silence on it, but I will link to a post I made in the most recent version of that debate: prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?showtopic=7853&st=640&p=5523143

That's very disappointing.

Loss, believe it or not, I didn't pull 1988 out of thin air: that was the last time Flair was really doing out dates and defending the belt in territories other than Crockett (although these were slowing down compared to what he was doing in 84-7). It's in December 88 / early 89, coinciding with the Turner buyout and Dusty's removal as booker when the company REALLY starts to make Flair being the greatest champ ever as the focus for the promotion.

Should probably be a thread split by my thinking was Windham, Hennig, DiBiase, Rick Martel, Bret, Savage or outside bets like Tommy Rich or even Terry Taylor. This is assuming that any of the mentioned would leave WWF for the honour of being NWA champ. Someone answer me this though: why not Tully Blanchard?

I like this as an idea for a thread. Something like "If Flair had died in 1988, who would have been chosen to carry the can after that point?". Think Bret is one of about 5 or 6 possible guys in that timeframe.

ohatani, I'm not American but I'm taking the 5th on that.

I hope you realise liking all those actors is the equivalent of liking Bret Hart more than Ric Flair. Care to explain?

But the first 2/3s of a Flair match usually involves him bumping around like a pinball for his opponent.

Ok, I put that in.

khawk, I don't dislike Bret Hart, I really don't. I just think that Flair is beyond comparison with him to the extent that I am slightly affronted that there is even a thread positing this question let alone people actually voting for Bret. It's like Kevin Spacey is a good actor ok, he's good, really good. He may have one or two specific performances that are better than specific Robert De Niro performances, Spacey might even do something you like and De Niro some things you don't, but there is no question as to who is better, none. De Niro is beyond comparison with Spacey, he's at another level. Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier, Day-Lewis, Burton even and you might have some sort debate on your hands, but Spacey vs. De Niro is a non-contest from the get go. The arguments for Pacino, Hoffman, Brando, Olivier or Day-Lewis over De Niro I can respect and even by persuaded by one way or the other, this is not the case with Spacey. The same is true of Bret vs. Flair, Bret being Spacey to Flair's De Niro. I am all for your right to state such opinions but don't ask me to respect them.

Edits made with all the info in this thread. Let me know if anything is wrong.

I don't understand SLL's post at all. Why watch DiBiase as the Million Dollar Man when Citizen Kane exists? Is this question really being posited? Am I going to dignify it with an answer? I can't entertain the idea that the world of 80s WWF and films made by Orson Welles exist as real alternatives that can be compared. The kooky, kitchsy "entertainment" world of pro wrestling is not in any way comparable to what you can get from other forms of entertainment. It's its own world, with its own internal logic. I fear further discussion along these lines will veer off into absurdity. If you watch wrestling solely for the matches and not for the skits and so on, fine. I'm just saying that 80s WWF was a product heavily geared towards the entertainment side of things (that product is probably not for you). I'm saying you should judge what people do in that context against that backdrop of it being an entertainment-heavy promotion. If you want to judge DiBiase's acting talent against Orson Welles, then ... fine. But I think that is quite an extreme and, dare I say it, a positvely mental position. There are SOME cross overs between film actors and wrestlers but not enough to warrant serious comparison. As to the point about DiBiase as technician or brawler, I already accepted and concluded that he's somewhere in between. Talk had moved on a little bit to assessing his overall worth as a worker.

khawk, you may know more about AWA than any living person, but this is a fucking disgrace.

I want to talk about the Scott Keith style of criticism. Reading that WWF Colesium reviews book I got recently, it is clear that guys like Arnold Furious and Bernard "The Rage" have been influenced by Keith. I like the book, it's comprehensive and doesn't skip anything at all, and has good detail in parts, but at times it's almost excessively smarky. That smarkiness to me feels dated, very early 00s -- on occasion it even borders on ignorance, espcially when I see guys like Greg Valentine getting a very rough ride and sentences like "Andre the Giant didn't have a good match after 1973". I am not plugged into any "smart" communities outside of PWO though, so I have no idea if Keith-style rants are still the norm out there. Are they? I'd like to think they belong to a moment that passed about 8 or 9 years ago. I don't want to discourage anyone from getting that book, because it's worth having and is one-of-a-kind, but the smarkiness can get a bit tiresome after a while. There are 4-5 different writers and I definitely prefer one or two of them over the ones who seem stuck in a Keith time warp.

Perfect Beatles analogy would be someone who had 10 years of great or near-great stuff and then retired. I've said it many times before but the correct music analogy for Flair is Bob Dylan. I understand that no one wants to talk about either The Beatles or Flair anymore in this thread though. On Bret a thought I had is this: one of the reasons he is so revered by the mythical "casual fan" is because he's one guy where we saw almost the entire career in WWF. Ok, we didn't get the first couple of years in Stampede or the last year in WCW but we did get get his rise through the ranks from tag to IC to World champ, from heel to face to super face / company ace back to heel again. That puts Bret in a very select group of workers whose development is tracked "in the limelight". Also for a generation, Bret kinda grew up as we grew up. I think this is another of the reasons why he used to be in the GOAT discussion.

I'll just come out and say flat out: I have no respect for anyone who votes for Bret here.

This came up reading the Observers for the podcasts but in December 88 after Dusty was fired but before the booking committee headed by Flair took over, JIM CROCKETT JR. HIMSELF was booking. He was the booker for Clash 4 and Starrcade 88. The committee took over after that. I literally had no idea at all that Crockett ever booked any shows himself. ALSO, Jim Herd had quite an extensive wrestling background pre-Pizza Hut that is never ever and I mean EVER discussed, mainly in St. Louis but also working for Vince Sr. for a while too. The WONs from around November and December of 88 are a real goldmine of info I've never seen anyone else.

I thought Grizzly Smith and Ernie Ladd were both booking around that time.

Might I ask why? What has Caudle got over Schiavone in that timeframe? What does he have over Cornette? Can you point to any occasions where Caudle made a point that was actually worth making?

This didn't deserve its own thread: but Bob Caudle has really REALLY been bugging me over the past few NWA shows from 88 I've been watching for the podcast. I just wanted to guage what people's views are on Caudle. This board has a very low opinion of Gorilla Monsoon, partly because he shit on guys and partly because he spoke in platitudes. Bob Caudle in 88 speaks almost solely in platitudes. He's the wrestling equivalent of a football ("soccer") manager coming out after the game as saying "well, y'know, at the end of the day, it's a game of two halves, and come what May the side with the most points at the top of the table will win the leauge" but for like 2 hours over the course of an entire show. He says absolutely nothing of interest. Nothing insightful. He doesn't help Ross call the action. He doesn't give any reasons for the random predictions he makes. He doesn't add ANYTHING to these shows at all. Ross and Schiavone are a good combo. David Crockett, in my view, added A LOT to the shows he was on in terms of excitement and general insanity. I remember not liking the Solie - Caudle partnership much but Chad and I focused much more on Solie's shortcomings (some of which were explainable by context). Caudle, however, got a free pass. Not any more. He never gets excited. He never says anything insightful or even of note. What does anyone see in him? If I was to rank the announcers in order, right now he'd be coming below Sean Mooney or Lord Alfred Hayes. At least those two can make you laugh on occassion. Caudle is just fucking boring and the definition of someone on autopilot. What are people's views on Caudle?

I have taken a solemn vow never to discuss ... the Flair formula topic ... ever again. So I won't. What I will say is that I don't think Bret and Flair are similar. Bret's matches all seem to drive towards logic and coherence on purpose, Flair's matches are more "random" in that they are mostly being made up as they go along, if a "story" is found it's almost stumbled on. I think they are very different workers in that respect. If I was to make an illfitting and uncalled for analogy, I'd say Bret is like a poker player who studies pot odds and calculates his next move, Flair's more like the sort of player tries to get a read on his opponents and makes gut instinct calls. I think Bret is a lot more conscious of what he's doing than Flair is. I honestly believe that Flair is the wrestling equivalent of a virtuoso who doesn't 100% understand exactly what he's doing -- both in the ring and in promos. Doesn't stop him being great, of course, but he's going on instinct and what comes naturally ... on flair if you want ... than on intelligence. This is just a theory I have which I accept could be 100% bullshit.

Rude's pre-match promo from that is probably one of the biggest boos I can remember seeing. Rude is awesome in 92. As a single year from one guy, I'd put it up there with anyone.

The first few Superbrawls are all really great cards, especially Superbrawls II and III. I love Beach Blash 92 as well. Late 91/ early 92 is a hot streak sort of period for WCW. I'd take Wrestlewar 92 as well. I have a hardon for 92 in general. Rumble 92, Wrestlemania 8 and Summerslam 92 would all be in contention for being in my 10 favourite shows. As ever, it's not all about the matches. I like shows that stand out for the storyarchs that run through an entire night and each of those shows from 92 in WWF have that with Flair in the Rumble, the stuff with Liz and the centrefold and one of the best promos of Flair's career post-match at Mania and the stuff with Perfect and Flair surrounding the title match at Summerslam followed by Bret vs. Bulldog. I also love Spring Stampede 94, which various other people have already mentioned. And GAB 89 of course. GAB 87 I remember being a really good show, but that's because the VHS is a composite of two separate cards. For a show that no one talks about ever? How about Slamboree 93? Blondes vs. Zenk and Steamboat, Arn Anderson vs. Barry Windham, Bulldog vs. Vader in quite a stiff match. As for later stuff, I remember really enjoying a LOT of the cards from WWF in 2000 but I haven't seen them since and they've aged badly from what people have said.

I'm saying that we, as fans, shouldn't judge WWF by the same criteria that we judge All Japan or Crockett or any other work-heavy product. Let me make an analogy. Do you judge drama by the same criteria you judge comedy? The answer is no. You judge comedy by how much it makes you laugh plus a few other things, you judge drama on another set of variables. So in the world of film, we as the audience gudge things based on genre expectations. We should do the same in wrestling. It is clear that the 80s WWF is a different genre of wrestling from what Crockett was doing. It's not a fair comparison, apples and oranges. Should only judge apples on your expectations of apples.

jdw - I think with anyone working in WWF in that timeframe looking for a ****1/2 match is a mistake. You have to just appreciate what guys do in matches rather than looking for a classic match itself. So in a sense, yes -- looking at execution, selling, charisma in the ring and so on. You're not going to get any technical matches or epics, they weren't allowed to happen. Looking at structure to an extent has to be a secondary thing because WWF was so formulaic. I honestly believe that. 80s WWF post-Backlund era requires a different mindset to get into properly. It's pointless trying to judge it against the same criteria as Crockett or All Japan. It's an entertainment-heavy product, so really entertainment should be the criteria you judge it on. For me, in THAT environment, Ted was a top 2 or 3 worker. Would only put Savage and maybe Steamboat when he was there ahead of him. There's something I can't put my finger on that has been bothering me about this post. I think it's because buried in here is a logical argument that goes something like this: DiBiase gets outworked on the mat by Tenryu Therefore Tenryu is a better wrestler than DiBiase Even if that conclusion is true, I'm not sure that this as an argument is valid since y'know wrestling matches aren't real so no one is really getting "outworked". I'm not saying it for certain, but I have a vague feeling that some confusion between kayfabe and guys working a match is going on here.