JerryvonKramer

Is Yatsu on the ballot?

jdw, why is Jimmy Lennon in the HoF but not Finkel? Just seems a bit pretentious to me.

I think it is far less cut and dry than that. Especially in Ventura's case, but with all 5 guys. I need to watch All Japan tonight, but tomorrow when I get 30 mins I will outline my position(s) and respond to individual comments. I think Okerlund, Fink, Ventura and Gorilla should have been in in 1996. Schiavone is a more debatable one.

The fact that people are now talking up Jimmy Hart only strengthens the case of the 5 guys I outlined. I will put cases together for each of them.

I have a lot to say in response here and to make cases for each of those 5 guys, but wonder if Dylan would prefer the non-wrestler candidate talk to happen in a different thread in which case some sort of split from my post and the replies to it would be merited. Don't want to derail the conversation Dylan intended here.

What about some more of the non-wrestlers? Gene Okerlund - one of the faces that was synomymous with wrestling during both boom eras as well as in the AWA. Don't see the argument against. Jesse Ventura - why isn't the best colour man in the history of the business inducted? Ok, he was shit in the ring, but he was a decent draw in his day too. But Ventura's commentating career is brilliant from start to finish. Has as much right to be in there as Dick Lane. Howard Finkel - so Jimmy Lennon is in but 'The Fink' isn't? Who is more important to the history of wrestling? I don't see the argument for Lennon, you might as well induct Michael Buffer. If there is one ring announcer to be inducted, it should be Finkel. End of. If it's two, then the Gary Michael Capetta should be the second one. Maybe Boyd Pierce after that. Tony Schiavone - why not? Why Lance Russell but not Tony? He worked NWA/ WCW for almost 20 years. Apart from Flair, there is no man who links all the different eras of Crockett more than Schiavone. He is disliked in the industry, but I don't see how there is an any argument for him not be there when Kent Walton is in. Gorilla Monsoon - well, logic dictates if you have Schiavone, you've got to have Gorilla too. WON might hate him. All of you might hate him. But Gorilla is one of the important announce men in wrestling history. You can debate about whether or not history would have been the same if it had been someone else, but Gorilla was extremely effective at getting over angles and subtle in-ring traits of performers. He's been accused of getting himself over and of burying guys, again, I don't see the argument that Lance Russell, JR and Walton make the cut but he doesn't. If Dave didn't have such prejudices, he would have been in in 1996. I think ALL FIVE of those have a better claims than anyone mentioned in this thread so far. I really do.

While we're at this, why not ask this one too: Dennis Condrey or Ole Anderson?

I think Arn has a lot more charisma than Eaton as well as much much better promo skills. Eaton might be the better worker, but Arn is the better total package in my view.

I am officially interested in the Legend's House series. Bet you us UK fans wont get WWE Network here.

I've always seen that as a DiBiase carry job. If the year Arn had in the WWF was the worst of his career, then that's a pretty phenomenal career. The thing with Arn is that he never seemed young even when he was technically a rookie. Like in '85 tagging with Ole, he already seems to be fully developed Arn.

Seriously whenever I've watched TNA, there's so much back office stuff in the actual show that it's impossible to care about. It's insular and inward looking. I can't remember when it was but the last one I saw had Foley in it and it was just a series of meetings at the GM's office interspersed with several crappy 3-minute matches. Just woeful. Actually, I caught one after that with Flair and Hogan in it. I couldn't work out who was face and who was heel. Hogan could barely walk.

I think it might be time for this one to go to megathreads.

I remember them talking about manager's licenses lots of times. Gorilla was big on them and Jesse was big on them. Typically, Jesse would complain if a face came out to even the odds, and Monsoon the other way around. Seem to recall that Dino Bravo got this a few times during Earthquake's 1990 run. The license would also be brought up when the ref would send guys back to the locker room. This often happened if a tagteam wrestler had a singles match and the partner came out too. Don't recall them ever talking about them in Crockett / WCW. Was always a WWF thing I thought, partly because the WWF put over managers pretty big in the 80s: Heenan, Hart, Fuji, Slick -- they were all important heel figures and treated as such, almost like Batman villains. Also, cm funk is right about them being real. I remember JJ Dillon talking about that on a shoot. I often wonder if officals in the 80s actually understood that wrestling is worked.

I'm thinking "peak is more a longer period of time. So peak Flair is 83-9. Peak Jumbo is 85-92. etc. Does that make sense?

My highly controversial pick is Tenryu before 1987. His work itself is fine, but his working of the crowd is non-existant, he's an awful babyface if you ask me. He just never looks bothered at any stage. I mean maybe it's just Tenryu's face itself that bothers me, he's got that permanent non-plussed look, but I can't recall the last time I took against someone like that. He's awesome now I've reached 88-89 and he's a heel, but before that I couldn leave him. Even in the absolutely off-the-charts 86-7 tags with Jumbo vs. Choshu and Yatsu he wears that expression during these balls-to-the-wall hate-feulled battles. I don't think he's doing anything particularly DIFFERENT in 88-89 it's just that he's booked stronger and in a position that suits his natural dickery. --------- Another worst pre-peak for me is Mark Calloway. Does anyone here have any serious love for the Skyscrapers that they'd like to explain to me? Marc Mero would be another one. And DDP. Both guys who somehow got A LOT better with XP, and against each other.

For fun we can also talk about the WORST pre-peak workers. I'd think there's a case for Rude here.

Watching Kawada on the All Japan 80s set made me wonder: who has the best pre-peak career? Obvious candidates include Tenryu (although I strongly disagree), Steve Austin, and Bret Hart.

A lot of Liverpool fans would debate Paisely vs. Shankly long and hard too. Argument for Shankly being that he set the groundwork and that his achievement from where they were when he took over to where they were when he left is arguably more impressive that Paisley's silverware. I'd go for Fergie over both of them though. Not only does he have the legacy (where they were when he took over to where they are now) and the silverware, but also he's done the amazing feat, which to my knowledge has never been done by anyone else, of building and then breaking up and rebuilding 3 or even 4 great sides. 91-4 side (Schmeichel, Parker, Pallister etc.) , 96-03 side ("you'll win nothing with kids"), 2004-09 (taking on Chelsea), 2009-now (taking on Man City and dealing with limited resources under the Glazers) Don't think any manager has managed to build so many different sides at the same club. Capello and Trappatoni have done it with different teams at different clubs, Jose Mourinho is on his way to doing it too, but this is something truly one-off. I think there are aspects of Ferguson that are often overlooked: his method of squad rotation, his ability to get the best out of the team right when it matters (i.e. the traditional awesome run Man U go on from Christmas to May, every season), his ability to get the very best out of average squad players like John O'Shea and Nicky Butt, his ability to bring through youth, his ability to get the most out of his veteran players (not just Giggs, look at, for example, Brian McClair in 92-3, or the season he had Laurent Blanc), and his uncanny ability to get rid of superstars at exactly the right moment (see Dwight Yorke, Andy Cole, Ruud Van Nistelrooy, even Jaap Stam). It's not just the trophies, it is everything. Ferguson's your complete package. And I haven't even mentioned "mind games" and his handling of the media.

Speaking of DQs, I've got a small question: What is the rule on guys using foreign objects OUTSIDE the ring in a normal match? I've seen lots of matches where they'll do a chair shot right in front of the ref and he lets it go.

jdw, I take it all back. I marked out like fuck when Henry scored tonight. Just amazing scenes. The stories like this are why we watch sport to be honest.

Mooney's best work wasn't on tv or in the booth, but on the Colesium Home Videos. Him and Lord Alfred Hayes were a great double act. Also whenever they do call matches, their commentary is so bad that it entertains me. What I loved about Mooney is that he always spoke in really unlikely cliched sentences that a marketing department might write. "When the two superstars meet inside the squared circle" He always called The Undertaker "the advanced man for the Grim Reaper"

When was the last time someone used the full nelson as a finisher? When was the last time someone did a full nelson at all? Or the bearhug? For some reason, I imagine Ivan Koloff did both those moves as finishers at one point or another.

Ok jdw, I'm tapping out on this. We're never going to agree on this. My view is that wrestling -- from puro to the cheesiest of cheesy 80s WWF -- is a comic-book world populated with heroes and villains. I think it is very difficult to take the moral element out of things. You can be deliberately contrarian and talk about hating Hogan in the 80s, but that's just the booking failing on you. You were meant to like Hogan but you didn't. You weren't meant to agree with Heenan. Funny enough, I was a heel fan as a kid -- Heenan, DiBiase, Ventura, Flair, Anderson, Rude, they were all my favourites. I supported heels. I was a mark heel fan. Hell, I even liked Mr. Fuji and Slick. I rooted for Brother Love over Piper at Wrestlemania 5. But that's not the way it was ever meant to be. The whole product is not designed for you to choose who to support. It's designed for you to root for the face and boo the heel. Are you denying this basic facet of wrestling booking? This one thing, for me, means that wrestling can never ever ever be like real sports where you have fans of teams and individuals. Ok, you've made a good case for how wrestling has tried to ape real sports and for how -- for fans, for the media and even for some players -- there is more to real sports than just winning and losing (i.e. the narratives around games). But I'm not convinced you've demonstrated how wrestling fans and sports fans are the same, or how the relationship to the product is the same. And in a sense, I don't understand why you'd want to show that either, when -- as plenty of folk have said -- wrestling is wrestling (i.e. not really like sports or like movies, although it takes elements of both). Just some final thoughts: When I said that players can't turn heel other than by being disloyal and you countered with "TO THEIR OWN FANS, they'd be heels to fans of all the other teams" -- don't you see how that's completley disanalogous with wrestling where you have absolute faces and heels? Being a face in wrestling is absolute -- forget your tweeners for a second -- your Tito Santana is a goody two-shoes, all his friends are good guys, he does good deeds, he shakes hands with the fans etc. You've been watching wrestling for over 25 years, I don't need to explain this to you. He's a face not only to Tito Santana fans, but also to ALL wrestling fans. Even little 7-year old Jerryvonkramer sitting at home with his love of all the bad guys can see that he's meant to like Tito, but being contrarian and a lover of villainy he chooses to prefer Ric Martel instead. Little Jerryvonkramer can see that he's in the vast vast minority there and that he is cheering for the bad guy. Let's say you'll always get the 5% of have to be different, maybe 10% in Philly. If Tito Santana turns, the so-called "Tito fans" don't stay loyal to him, they'll boo him. All the fans will boo him. Except that 5%, 10% in Philly. Suddenly Little heel mark Jerryvonkramer likes Tito Santana. I guess what I'm saying is that in wrestling there are ONLY two teams: heel and face. And you're meant to be a (mark) face fan. And the vast majority of fans were mark face fans.All my friends loved Bret and Warrior and Legion of Doom and Demolition before them and all the rest of that shit. They all happened to be faces. Being a sports fan just isn't like that. It doesn't matter if Man City are heels TO YOU, in the abstract, in the way they are presented on the news and so on, they are just a team who have received investment and who are doing well at the moment. They aren't absolute heels. There is no "heel side" of the English Premier League. There are no heel teams. Even Stoke aren't a heel team. There are no heels. Even Roy Keane wasn't a heel, even if he got booed in every stadium he played in. Why? Because a heel is a construct, a fictional villain character played by a professional wrestler. Roy Keane was just a player who went in very hard when he was tackling. And he had a bad temper. But he wasn't a VILLAIN. You've talked time and again now of fans deserting their teams: fairweather fans. Glory hunters some might say. Fine, but most folk would say they aren't true fans of their teams. Leeds still get big crowds. Nottingham Forrest get decent crowds. Newcastle got more than 30,000 every week when they went down. Like anything else you get your diehards and you get your here today, gone tomorrow fans. But on the whole being a fan of a team is a lifelong thing, some might call it a burden, or a cross to bear, especially those of lower league sides. Say if Sir Alex leaves Man U and they slump to mid-table, are you suddenly going to stop being a United fan? (please don't say "yes") Being a mark babyface fan is not the same thing at all. For a start, wrestlers' careers are relatively short. Secondly, they are prone to turn heel. Thirdly, your interest as a fan will wax and wane depending on the presentation of the product, the angles and storylines on offer, etc. Finally, you are rooting for him because he's fighting for a cause you believe in ("you" being the mark babyface fan, not the contrarian jdw in the 80s or Little Jerryvonkramer). Ok, have to stop because we're going round in circles. I've actually discussed this with some IRL friends because it's been rumbling on for days now, and I do need to check that I'm not going mad as well. I'm having another set of friends round for dinner tomorrow and I'll bring this up with them too. All big sports fans -- none of them wrestling fans. I'll see if they agree with you or not. I'll even show them this thread. =================== On the other point that people have mentioned a few times now: That real sports have better and more compelling stories than wrestling. Well I'm not disagreeing with that. But what medium has EVER been able to emulate sports? Films? Books? TV shows? They all fail really because you can't recreate that sort of drama, it's not possible. It's very context specific for a start. For the sake of my sanity and everyone else's, I'm willing to accept that wrestling is EQUIDISTANT to sports and movies / comics / whatever. However, the stuff comparing wrestling fans to football fans is something I don't buy all. And I will never accept that real sports have faces and heels that are comparible to the faces and heels of wrestling.

I've got a feeling a really mundane reason for the bodyslam is that in those days the heels ALWAYS led the matches and so your skilled wrestlers would be heels. Ergo, babyfaces were likely to have more basic offense as they were generally lesser wrestlers. I think people like The Barbarian did bodyslams whether as face or as heel.

A few things: 1. I never said there were no storylines in sports, I said the storylines are generated by the media and outside the game. They create hype around games to sell papers, to sell the games themselves and to ensure audience numbers. I said there was no MORAL ELEMENT to those narratives and that wrestling stories are closer to the movies. 2. The UK has the nastiest tabloid press in the world and in terms of crowds and money spent, the most committed fans (look at crowds for the Championship vs. Segunda Division or Serie B crowds). The country is also obsessed with seeing great people fall, seedy gossip and so on in a way that the US isn't always. It's always seemed to me that the US audience loves a SUCCESS story, whereas the UK audience loves a FAILURE or FALL FROM GRACE story. The country is also obsessed with football. Accordingly, whenever anything happens in football, it's a massive deal. The back pages are filled with page after page of speculation about the tiniest thing. A tiny utterance from a player or manager could be enough to make 2-3 articles. Usually the things that some player has said are pulled completely out of context for the purposes of sensationalism. For instance, if they asked Jose Mourinho if Villas-Boas was doing well and he said "he could be doing better", the headline would be warped into "MOURINHO SLAMS AVB FOR RUINING CHELSEA". Incidentally, I only read The Guardian and zonalmarking these days. Not woth bothering with anything else to be honest. 3. Ok, ok, I was deliberately underplaying the importance of the 19th title, but the basic point remains the same: the players generally care far less about the narratives built up around the games than we are made to believe. 4. The ongoing narratives and big stories in football are NOTHING LIKE the ones in wrestling, for all the reasons I've been stressing.