JerryvonKramer

Tito wasn't a career midcarder, far from it, he's just the most visible example to a certain generation of fans. Tito pretty much defined the midcard from after Strike Force split up to 92. He arguably slid to JTTS level by 93.

Jerry, you're a well-educated man. Surely, you've taken a history course at some point in your life. You know better than this. There are plenty of ways to learn about and understand the past if you care to look for them. "Ever" means "ever" in the WON HOF, which is the subject of this thread. "Ever" not meaning "ever" would actually be a major shift in tone after we just got done talking about Hans Schmidt and Gus Sonnenberg. You're right S.L.L. The JvK campaign to induct Edwin Bibby starts here! Seriously, for all the talk of Big Daddy, why isn't Bibby inducted already?

I am resolved to throw in the towel like Arnold Skaaland. Sting shouldn't go in and a good case cannot be made. I have been persuaded.

I think the nuanced distinctions Mad Dog draws here are true, but it just occurred to me that there's another distinction to draw: mid-carder-WITH-feud/storyline mid-carder-without-feud The guy with the storyline is undoubtedly getting a stronger push than the guy who is just floating around picking up wins and losses in a vacuum. Tito again might be an illustrative example. So many times, Tito had no storyline to the extent that he was still clinging onto that feud with Ric Martel almost two years after the fact. When he was made "El Matador" he was given some stories: a feud against Repo Man and a semi-feud against DiBiase. So late 91 Tito -- while still firmly a midcarder -- is probably higher on the card than mid-1990 Tito, who as far as I can remember, isn't given any storylines at all, even if that feud was just a "filler feud".

So what is being said here, if I can understand it correctly, is that no one whose main run took place in the dark ages should be considered for the HoF? That the HoF should be reserved only for those people who had demonstrable runs as top draws? I would like to reiterate my hypothesis and conclusion: 1. What do you make of this? Do you agree with it? 2. If that is the case, then does it stand to reason that from that generation of US workers only a handful should be inducted? Hogan, Rock, Austin, Cena. Who else? Who else is demonstrably a draw in the way that we are trying and failing to prove that Sting was? Did a single other worker boost business for either WCW or WWF between 1987 and now? Savage? Did he boost business or did he just keep something going that Hogan started? Well? Who actually boosted business? It's very hard to make a case for anyone based on drawing power. Savage goes in because he benefits from working on top in 88-89 at a time when Hogan had made the business hot, to a lesser extent DiBiase gets this rub too. Sting doesn't go in because he had the misfortune of working for the wrong company. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Loss - does that mean that that all of the other guys maineventing in that period shouldn't go in? Rick Rude is the name that sticks out, he was over as hell as a heel during that time, but the figures show that he didn't make any difference as a draw. Rude is not in the HoF to my knowledge, is there a case for him? Steamboat is another guy who was mainevening then, but he's in by fiat for being a GOAT worker. Are we saying that unless there is exceptional work-based arguments to be made that no one from the early 90s gets in because business was bad? Seems an odd argument. Those guys are all just unlucky?

Renegade being one of the top 5 most screwed over by the booker guys in pro wrestling history is... well... pretty crackers. John If anything he got a juiced up (pun somewhat intended) push based on his look and Hogan's need to have a Warrior character for an inexplicable reason. As far as I recall, he was nowhere ready for the push and was not really a good worker at all. Not to sound overly unsympathetic, but it isn't the bookers' fault his mental makeup was so weak he had to commit suicide because of his failure as a pro wrestler. I don't think he should have ever been put in that spot. It was a stupid idea. And the way they buried him after initially pushing him to the moon is, in my view, harsh (on him, obviously it was necessary). "Screwed over" is perhaps not the right phrase. But I think that the bookers are in some way culpable -- for putting him in a situation in where he could only ever have failed, for giving him an unrealistic set of expectations, for going in so hard with the idea (a terrible idea) and then pulling the plug on it so quickly. Obviously, the key factor in the suicide itself, is his mental constitution, but I don't think that the bookers are entirely without culpability. It's not a binary. There may be multiple factors for any given event. I don't think it's "irresponsible" to make this point. If Renegade is not top 5 "screwed over" by bookers, fine, but I think it's top 5 "examples of worst booking since the 1970s".

FLIK, I was in the process of doing this but with houseshows rather than supercards or Clashes. The conclusion is the same though: Sting seems to have no effect on the performance of any given card. In fact, there are no discernable effects from ANY main eventers, Ron Simmons, Vader, Steamboat, Rude, Dustin Rhodes, Windham, Austin, even Flair ... none of them seem to make a blind bit of difference. There are cards with only 400 people with Sting, Vader, Rude and Steamboat in the main event. There are cards with Sting vs. Orndorff on top a month later drawing 3,000. It all depends on: - hotness of the company - the town Seems like at certain periods in 92 and 93, there is absolutely nothing that could be done to make people attend those shows. Top, top crowds are like 6,000 max and some of those seem to have comps. Doesn't matter who is in the main event. What I haven't done yet is to look at the WWF cards over the same time period to see if BRET is making a difference or not. Here is my hypothesis: After about 1987 (i.e. after the end of the territory system), most main event wrestlers DO NOT make a discernible difference on attendance figures, the ones that do can be counted on two hands. Hogan, Rock, Austin - these are guys who can make 1000s of people attend a show who wouldn't have otherwise. The rest of the time the hotness of the company is the only differentiator. Doesn't matter if it's Sting, Steamboat, Bret Hart or Kevin Nash. Conclusion: Guys like Hogan give us an unrealistic and skewed perspective on what draws can be and how to measure them. He is the exception, rather than the rule. i.e. MOST guys make no real difference to the amount of people who watch wrestling matches live. ------------------------- On the other point: I don't care, I'm not withdrawing my claims that evilclown has been pompous. Absurdly pompous. "serious discussion board" "pro wrestling" "serious discussion board" "pro wrestling" "serious" "pro wrestling" And for the record, I do not think that any of us on this entire forum can have a serious discussion on any wrestlers who pre-date the 1970s. How can we with no footage? Guesswork based on a few title histories and a few figures? For all intents and purposes, "best ever" might as well mean "Since the 1970s". Since when has "ever" actually meant "ever" in the world of talking about wrestling? Are we going to be that pedantic, that uptight, that "serious" on this forum as to quibble over semantics each and every time hyperbole is employed? Well?

A mid-carder beats lower midcarders and jobbers but loses to main eventers and upper midcarders. Sometimes a midcarder has a feud with another midcarder who he may or may not beat. There are in fact six ranks I reckon: Maineventer (Hogan) Upper midcarder (Mr. Perfect) Midcarder (Tito) Lower midcarder (Koko B. Ware, Hercules) "Named jobber" (SD Jones, Iron Mike Sharpe, Barry Horrowitz, Brooklyn Brawler) Pure jobber Hogan vs. Perfect - win for Hogan Perfect vs. Tito - win for Perfect Tito vs. Koko B. Ware or Herc - win for Tito Tito vs. named jobber or pure jobber - win for Tito I was going to make a thread on how and why someone becomes a "named jobber". But I might as well ask it here. How does that happen? Were the likes of Jones and Sharpe on decent money?

Do listen to yourself evilclown, your pomposity in the last few posts has been borderline ridiculous.

I'm working on that Abdul the Turk retrospective now. Think he could have been a top heel if he'd gone over at "The Punchout in Plymouth" back in 1948.

Buzz Sawyer seems like a guy from a bygone era for some reason. I like the combination of Cornette and Ross on commentary. "What are you saying about Anderson's wide base?" - ha ha ha We also get some nice DC comics references from Corny, how many times has Green Lantern ever been referenced on wrestling tv? This match is enjoyable enough, it's just kind of there and I quite like watching Arn even if he's not doing much of interest. This feels like watching a typical tv match and I really LIKE that -- that means the yearbook is doing what it was meant to do. I'm a sucker for a good powerslam from an Irish whip and Sawyer hits a nice one here. "Anderson's luck's been so bad he got a divorce and the judge gave him custody of his mother in law ... You probably know bit about that too Jim?" "No comment" Ha ha ha ha ha! I always said that Ross never worked well with Ventura and was awkward when he had to work with Heenan too, but Cornette and Ross just works. They are talking about the simarilities between Manuel Noriega and Gene Anderson now. Awesome. Fairplay, Buzz Sawyer's giving this all he's got. Spinebuster. Good night Irene. NO!!! Wow, he kicked out! Muta now! I didn't see this coming. Still think The Dragon Master looks like an Asian Baron von Raschke.

All I've got to say is "awwww". You can just imagine what was going through his mind here, standing there with one of his heroes trying to get his character over. Just goes to show though that it takes time to hone these skills. It's remarkable that Cactus goes from this to what we see in 92.

Who is the commentator here? Something about his phrasing reminds me of Sean Mooney. LOVED and I mean LOVED a lot of the mischeivious shit from Dundee's team here in the early going. Every time I've seen Bill Dundee I've thought he was great. Gary Young has the look of a faceless 80s WWF jobber, but I liked his offense for the most part, especially on Chris Adams, who is good as the face in peril. Billy Travis's one-legged trunks are just ridiculous and hilarious. He's already been the revelation of this yearbook, and I mean what the hell Billy Travis (ha ha!) - awesome guy. Just something captivating about him. Chad -- I'm not even kidding, but once I'm a bit further into the set, I'd consider doing a one-hour special show just on Travis! USWA stuff so far has been excellent. I like the call from the ring announcer too "The match is totally out of control, there's no winner".

This had some cool kicks and things at the start, but lots of tentative stuff and laying around on the mat and shouting. Occasionally -- and for me this is the worst sin of any submission hold -- I couldn't see how the hold was actually meant to hurt. Sitting on someone's back or just holding their arm in and of itself isn't painful and all-in-all there's quite a lot of that. In my mind that is almost absurd: guys, you are MAKING THIS UP, that means within the confines of your ability, you can do pretty much anything you want, so you CHOOSE to spend a huge portion of the match laying on the floor doing moves that don't always look that painful? I don't understand that, I don't understand that mentality. That said, the 3/4 crab did look mean, but how many matches can you think of where the HIGH SPOT is a bloody Boston crab? I do like the shoot kicks though, they are cool. But this is just not my scene at all.

This is not something I can understand or get into. Is this what you call "shoot style"? I liked some bits. The knees into a DDT from Anjo, for example, had good intensity. And the matwork IS better than your average matwork. But Jesus this goes on FOREVER. I'm into wrestling for suplexes, piledrivers, strikes, and men in silly hats talking shit to each other, this is about as far away from this as you can get. If WWF represents a good cheeseburger, and NWA/WCW a good portion of BBQ pulled pork, this is like your wrestling equivalent of a bowl of lightly salted lentils. You know that lentils are "good for you", but do you actually just want to eat a bowl of lentils? Some context may have helped here, this is my very first UWF match and there was a certain amount of culture shock going on. I'll try to be positive, but I've got a feeling that I'm not going to like the other UWF stuff on the yearbook much.

The Powers of Pain look like they are hailing from THE EIGHTIES here as they enter with that gear on. This is probably the least offensive I've ever seen The Warlord look -- I'd go as far as to say that nothing he does in this match actively detracts from it. The bumping and the double-team spots from both of the Rockers is great here. And I like that they had to fight for their shine sequence at the start through trickery and cunning outsmarting brute force. Some great spots: Warlord's powerbomb, the TERRIFIC powerslam catching the guy from the top rope by the Barbarian, the kick from The Barbarian. He's a really good worker in his own right for my money, but Shawn and Marty make him look LETHAL here. While the Warlord is more of a man-mountain. Great WWF match. Think the Fuji interference is not a problem -- the fact that the POP had to cheat at all gets over the idea that The Rockers are a really good team who can overcome a big size and strength disadvantage.

This makes me proud to be an American.

After participating in the All-Japan 80s project, these guys all feel like old friends to me. And this picks up right where that set leaves off. The heels bullying Tiger Mask is sensational here.

How about Flair and the figure-four reversal?

I just think that Flair -- possibly more than any other guy -- has very very distinct face ("Minnesota Flair") and heel ("Carolina Flair") modes -- made more confusing by the fact that the heel mode can also sometimes be booked as a face (see, for example, vs. Nikita in 86, or 97-8 sort of time, although he arguably has a third mode "Crazy Middle-aged Man" that starts to creep in around then). Flair has 2 characters. One is a legend, a family man, a college jock, someone who trains hard, gives everything his all, will work against the odds etc. for all intents and purposes almost identical to Steamboat. The other is Slick Rick, also a legend, who we all know and love. Never the twain shall meet. They are as distinct as Yellow-and-Red Hulk and Hollywood Hogan -- but this is not 100% obvious because there's no image change, he wears the same trunks, robes and suits playing both characters (although face Ric can also wear training tops, as he does in 83 and in some of the 93 stuff). Whatever the story was, there is no doubt that Flair was playing the first character in this feud.

El-P - what do you think of the booking around Starrcade 93? There are some terrific call backs to Starrcade 83 during that feud and Harley's bumps and involvement in general all hark back to this overarching narrative that he's still sore over what happened in 83. All of which is underlined by the fact that Flair slips back into "Minnesota mode", the nice-guy, the family man who always gives his best, even uses exactly the same voice as he does during Starrcade 83. I think the symmetry of those two shows is beautiful.

That's a good point actually Loss -- and one of the reasons why DiBiase sucked as a manager so much. Managers need to be able to take bumps -- something that Sherri always did. However, I do like the beat down Perfect and Flair give Savage in Summerslam 92, pretty brutal for the time period. They basically break Savage's leg with that chair. Also,the post-match promos from Rumble 92 and Mania 8 with Heenan, Flair and Perfect are amazing. Any time where it's all three of them on camera is quite cool. I have to say I do like that little triumvirate as an uber-heel faction, despite the fact Perfect couldn't bump.

As weird as it seems, I don't think Flair suits having a valet period. His personality and character are much more geared towards the OTHER guy having a valet, a la the feud with Savage in 92 or the feud with Jimmy Garvin in late 87 / early 88. Flair should be directing his sexual energy at his opponent's woman, not one in his own corner. I much prefer the idea of Flair having a JJ Dillon or Heenan in his corner to look after his business interests with someone like an Arn or Mr. Perfect who has got his back.

I think The Renegade is legit in the top 5. I mean, there's an argument to say he was driven to suicide because of the way he was booked -- pretty extreme case, but it's one where you can see how his life was affected by mishandling by bookers. With Luger, his main-event career is affected at almost every turn by bookers turning him face or heel at inopportune moments, to an extent where I can't think of many parallels. Sorry if I'm forgetting to take main event runs from the 1940s and 1950s into account. I mean seriously, what you expect here evilclown? A full consideration how Abdul the Turk was booked in 1947-8? Give me a break.