JerryvonKramer

Seems weird looking at that to think IRS pinned Bossman.

Mr. Wrestling II was in the WWF? And at the same time as Funk (which would be 85)?!! News to me! Legit shocked.

Sell him to me. Explain to those of us who don't get him why / when / how he was so great. So far in mid-late 80s stuff for the podcast and in both of his appearances on the All Japan set, I haven't been into him a whole lot. "Bland" being the word I'd use. I remember seeing a great tag match with him once in WWF when he was with Adonis. Where would you start with Murdoch? What are his good matches? Why isn't his greatness obvious to me and ol' NintendoLogic already?

My point was never that, it was that the argument that Flair always had the same match because of certain repeated elements is false.

jastrau97 - name me a single wrestler that doesn't do that though.

As of right now, you have an ally in me here.

I think Loss's post there about signature bumping is fantastic and analysis like that is one of the reasons why I post on this board every day. Matt - I think you'll find that Flair works Garvin VERY differently from how he works, say, Steamboat. I'll chuck in a few others: vs. Jumbo in All Japan (83) vs. Garvin at Superstars on the Superstation (85) vs. Nikita Koloff at GAB 85 vs. Sam Houstonvs. Jimmy Garvin at GAB 87 If you watch those five, plus the ones Loss mentioned, I don't think you can argue it's the same match again and again. Even take the two different Ron Garvin matches from 85 and Starrcade 87 they aren't worked the same. Look at Flair's offence in the Jimmy Garvin match where he almost breaks his leg and compare it with the much much more technical style he works with Jumbo in Japan. The stories in all these matches are different: In the Houston match, he's overconfident and underestimates an underdog, but still ends up kicking his ass anyway. In the Nikita match, he's outpowered needs to changeup his game plan to get the better of his opponent. In the Garvin matches he's come to fucking fight. I don't think you can really come out of it and say "oh they are all the same because he always does a Flair Flop and a Flair Flip". Take 10 Hogan matches from the same period, then you can start to talk about formula.

It's also simply not true. Yes, he had formulas, but he's very often accused of not telling coherent stories in his matches. I'll cite jdw's famous "he just goes out and does a bunch of stuff" argument. So if we accept that 90% of Flair's matches are called in the ring, on the hoof. I don't see how he can AT ONCE be accused of "just doing stuff" and not telling stories AND be accused of only having 3 different types of matches. So I reject that argument Matt.

That Flair has flaws is undeniable but are they enough to discount him from being the GOAT? I've said it before: no one else in the history of wrestling faced a greater variety of opponents over such a long period of time and in so many places. Look at the #150 results from all of the DVDR sets to date -- Flair is in the top 15 in almost every territotry including All Japan. The fact he was having great matches in the 1970s and arguably had one or two great matches in the 2000s just adds to his case. Funk, Lawler, Jumbo, etc. can't compete with Flair's career because it's one of a kind. Beyond comparison almost. I've said it before -- he's akin to being something like the Bob Dylan of wrestling. Dylan had his fair share of shitty albums, but no one else has a career to match that. No one else has that sort of range, variety and longevity. You can take bands or artists with shorter careers and say that they were more consistent -- The Smiths, for example, arguably only released great albums with very little shit. But all The Smiths albums kinda sound the same and there are only 4 of them. The analogy isn't perfect, but I think Flair bests 90% of other contenders on that basis. I honestly think that Terry Funk is the only other guy in the conversation.

LOVE the idea of Chad, with his accountant hat on assessing risk, for various wrestlers. "Mr. DiBiase, do you know your second rope double-axe handle spot has only hit in 5% of your matches. At least 90% of the time it results in you taking a shot to the stomach and spinning over to the floor. I'd advise you not to attempt this move again sir. Also, I think you might want a more secure way of storing your all your $100 bills than letting a black guy called Virgil carry them around. He keeps losing them to babyfaces and they end up in the hands of fans. You might want to consider getting a partner with a briefcase."

Are there any standard spots that your favourites do that irritate you? For example, I love Arn Anderson but I don't like it whenever he does the cartoony "drunk" punches into thin air. I can understand a guy like Terry Funk having that in his repetoire but with someone who is meant to be as cerebral as Arn, I've never thought it made sense for his character to do that spot. As a side issue, what do people think about the Flair Flip? That move is almost never logical and seldom part of the 'story of a match' but it is so distinctly Flair that sometimes it's almost comforting to see it. Depending on my mood, sometimes I like it, other times it makes me roll my eyes and think "here we go again". Is anyone particuarly a FAN of it? Does anyone here HATE it?

Finished now and really wasn't as bad as all that. Much better than the History of Raw show. Gene and Hayes can get really sleazy when they talk about strip bars and things. I did laugh when one of them quipped about educating Patterson about such things.

Only 20 minutes or so into this, but it's a lot better than expected. They've dug much deeper into the history than usual not just around the territories but there's a segment on Onita and FMW now. Ok, every five minutes Gene tries to bring Pat Patterson in, who stubbornly no sells each and every attempt to say something positive about hardcore, but if you ignore that it's been pretty informative so far.

Might watch the Hardcore one later. Find Gene slightly frustrating as a chair, always seems to cut things off just as they are about to get going. I always get the impression that the off-air conversation is more interesting than what we are seeing. He is curiously defensive of WCW. I just think he's not willing to tow the revisionist party line. I mean the History of Raw show was ridiculously self congratulatory, without Gene there it would have been an hour of JR, Hayes and Patterson patting themselves on the back with Road Dogg sitting respectfully in the corner. I prefer the shows where it's only one of Hayes and Patterson plus Gene, JR and two guests. When it was DDP and Piper, Dusty and Bill Watts, DiBiase and Slaughter, or even back when JR was hosting and it was Bischoff, Lawler, Foley and Hayes. With JR, Hayes AND Patterson it's just too one-side, too WWE's version of history, especially when the focus is on the Monday Night Wars period. I might go back and watch some of the older ones, it's been a while. Just remember absolutely hating Mike Graham and Flair being unbearably dickish.

Just a heads up to UK posters, just stumbled on this browsing BBC iplayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01p9...s_and_Grannies/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p96ly I haven't watched it yet but looks like it will chiefly be about World of Sport and McManus is named alongside Big Daddy, Adrian Street and Giant Haystacks as some of the guys they'll be looking at. Will see about trying to find this for our State-side brethren to watch. Not too many documentaries abut British wrestling.

Which one Matt?

Yes, Garvin was the big oversight I made in the initial post there. Not sure that Wahoo was above the Boogie Woogie Man though. I STILL think the roster was weaker in the middle than you are making out. The point is that JCP could put on A strong card -- as in variations of the one you posted above, but beyond the guys in each match there were not a whole plethora of options. WWF always kept at least 3 heels who could main event around plus your Kamalas and King Kong Bundys, JCP had one (Flair) -- arguably two if you count pre-turn Nikita. WWF had Hogan plus a B-show face, plus another face who could be put in the semi-main or main against one of the heels not facing Hogan that night. Post-Magnum, JCP had Dusty and that's about it. So in 86 say, while JCP could effectively pick a main event from Flair, Dusty and Nikita, WWF could pick one from Hogan, Piper, Orndorff, Bundy, Andre. Next rung down JCP have Tully, Arn, Ole [--> Luger], Ronnie Garvin and The Road Warriors in singles or in tags. WWF had Savage, Steamboat, Tito, any 3 of the maineventers who weren't maineventing, Greg Valentine, Kamala (who could mainevent), JYD (who could main event), John Studd and arguably (pre-injury) Harley Race (who could main event) There's no way of arguing that different manifestations of any of the 4 Horsemen vs. Garvin, The Road Warriors or Dusty lines up depth-wise against the almost endless possible combinations you can get in the main and semi-main from Hogan, Orndorff, Andre, Bundy, Piper, Savage, Steamboat, Tito, Valentine, Kamala, JYD, Studd or Race I don't think it's even POSSIBLE to argue that JCP were "more loaded" than the WWF on top. Sure, you could get ONE amazing looking card from the available talent but what then? The same card again? And again? And again? Let's go another rung down into the tag ranks and the real midcard. Tagteams first. For JCP: [Road Warriors], [Arn + Tully], Midnights, Rock n Roll Express, and for a while Rude and Fernandez, and then what? Sure, four of those are arguably among the greatest tag-teams of all time, but you can't really argue that FIVE tag teams is strength in depth. Again, it's one or two good cards deep. Roadies vs. Arn and Tully, Roadies vs. Mightnights, Mightnights vs. R n R, R n R vs. Arn and Tully. Let's look at WWF: Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff, The British Bulldogs, The Islanders, The Funks, The Dreamteam, The Killer Bees, The Hart Foundation, The Rougeaus, Afa and Sika, The US Express, The Can-Am Connnection, The Young Stallions I'm not doing "the math" but it's clear to see that regardless of the greatness of the JCP teams, there are more than double the amount of guys in the WWF tag ranks and, aside from the odd Volkoff or Sheik or Terry Funk match vs. Hogan on an SNME (or whatever), the vast majority of the tag teams stick to tags only. JCP frequently need to call on Hawk or Animal to main event with Flair. Now the midcard: JCP: The Barbarian, Jimmy Garvin, Ivan Koloff, Big Bubba Rogers, Barry Windham, Kevin Sullivan, Dick Murdoch, Sam Houston, Wahoo McDaniel, Pez Whatley, Jimmy Valiant WWF: Adrian Adonis, George Steele, Don Muraco (could main event), Bob Orton, Hillbilly Jim, Billy Jack Haynes, Koko B. Ware, Honkytonk Man, Hercules, Butch Reed, Dino Bravo, Pedro Morales, Jake Roberts JCP's lineup may look slightly stronger on paper, but remember that whoever is not in the semi-main from the maineventers and upper midcarders can also have matches with these guys. Again, it's the total possible amount of matches that you need to consider, not ONE card, but let's say 10 different cards. WWF had pretty much DOUBLE JCP's roster at any given time, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that that means JCP are going to be doing a lot more rinse and repeat than WWF. If you'll suffer one of my soccer analogies John: JCP had a good "starting lineup" but no one on the bench to come on. They had to field largely the same team week-in, week-out. WWF had almost endless variety. Ok you've got Dusty vs. Flair and Arn and Tully vs. The Roadies but what then? Flair vs. Nikita and Arn and Tully vs. R n R what then? Then you're stuck. Tully vs. Dusty part 322? Flair vs. Dusty again? Dusty and Nikta vs. Arn and Tully with Flair against Hawk? What then? I don't need to write it out in full to see that this simply doesn't happen on the WWF -- hell, they ran split shows everywhere and it didn't even happen on the B shows. I don't think an argument can really be made that JCP had "too much talent" when compared with their nearest rivals.

When was he booked strong Al? I thought he was chicken shit from the start wasn't he?

I bought this book the other day and did not realise that the poster known as evilclown, with whom I had quite a tiff and accused of "absurd levels of pomposity" during the Sting mega-debate, wrote it. I would like to apologise once again for my decorum during that spat, and it is obvious I didn't realise who I was talking to (an actual wrestling historian!).

The thing is about Lawler in WWF is that he was booked almost at Honkey-Tonk-levels of chicken shit heelery. It's hard to have a good match if you're meant to be that weak.

I wonder if -- as a group -- the Yearbooks and things like El-P watching WCW in sequence, have largely moved us beyond the 'Great Matches' mindset now?

His non-wrestling stuff in WWF is better than his in-ring work. (talking about his angles in 93-5, not his colour commentary work).

To what extent do people think that the film The Wrestler pretty much killed hardcore wrestling? Or at least acted as the final nail in the coffin. Seems to me that mainstream media coverage of wrestling from the mid-90s on always honed in on the hardcore aspect.

Wow, there's a new one?! Already?