JerryvonKramer

..and you can't spell "Psychology" right? Yeah I saw that as soon as I posted and this bloody board doesn't allow you to edit the title. I sent Loss a PM asking him to change it. I always post in a rush using Notepad at work.

I'll give you an example: The Sheik vs. Ricky Steamboat from the 80s All-Japan set. Everyone else has ranked that bottom 10. It's still in my top 10. But I'm not NECESSARILY arguing for chaos here, I'm asking whether logic and storytelling always praiseworthy. So I'm not saying matches should be like Memento, I'm asking whether the simple fact that wrestler A used "psychology" or worked a match that moved from A to B to C is in and of itself enough for us to think that the match is a good one. It's a very mundane and unremarkable thing if you think about it. You see my point?

Some of may not know that as well as being a wrestling enthusiast, I'm also a doctor of English with a particular interest in literary theory -- just completed two books looking at literary approaches being published next year. So I'm always interested in methods of assessment, aesthetics, notions of value and so on. In wrestling fandom, the so-called smarts have always valued psychology, logic and storytelling within a match over pretty much anything else. I've been thinking about this of late and wondering why. Two questions: - In real life, do fights follow any particular logic? Would a bloke in a barroom brawl think about softening up a leg in order to apply a hold? What happens in UFC? Seems to me that the idea of a fight telling a story is purely the invention of pro wrestling. Most fights in real life are scrappy, disjointed, all over the place and so on. - When assessing other narratives, do we apply the same sort of standards? Seems to me that a match that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion is almost always praised for that fact. But if we watch a film that moves from A to B to C in a logical fashion, would we praise it for that? Or would we criticize it for being unadventerous, conventional, predictable and derivative? Are the best books those that advance their narratives logically from A to B to C? John Grisham does that very well, is he a better writer than James Joyce? Or Shakespeare? His works are a lot more "logical" on a narrative level. But typically, we don't judge books or films in this way. We EXPECT narrative simply to form part of its fabric and tend to focus on other things: style, themes, characters, whatever. So why in wrestling is the fairly mundane and unremarkable fact of basic narrative seen as being the be all and end all? Short version: 1. Is a match structure with a logical story realistic? How? 2. Is it in and of itself something that makes a match good? Why? Posters on this board do a very good line in challenging received wisdom. Reassessing sacred cows like Dynamite Kid vs. Tiger Mask, or rehabiliting the reputations of people like Ken Patera or Buddy Rose. But this is one assumption that seems to have gone unchallenged. In every writeup I read it is an implied part of the assessment criteria. I am looking to ask some critical questions about that assumption.

I'd like to develop my idea that there are at least 4 or 5 different "Flair formulas" that he employs depending on the opponent. Before any of that though - I think it's worth pointing out that "the Flair formula" is a variation of THE wrestling match babyface vs. heel formula of: 1. Babyface shine 2. Heel does something to cheat to gain advantage 3. Heel controls 4. Heel "heat segment" reaches a peak (figure four) to transition into ... 5. Babyface "hope spot" (figure four reversal) 6. Heel regains control (thumb to the eye after reversal) 7. Babyface starts comeback (no selling of chops / chops vs. punches etc.) 8. Finish That's not just the Flair formula, it's the Hogan formula, it's the Bret formula, it's the Lawler formula. EVERYONE works to that formula. So we're looking for subtle variations. From what I've seen - your typical Crockett main event match is DIFFERENT from your typical Flair in All Japan 2/3 falls match, which is DIFFERENT from your 10-minute TV match vs. Sam Houston or some other jobber. Let's just stick with those three for now. The Crockett main event match is as described in Loss's May 09 post on page 1. This also doubles as his NWA champ match vs. local hero in any given territory. So he'd work Sting the same as he'd work the local hero. 2/3 falls match in All Japan. Ok, basing this mainly on the Jumbo match, but most of his All Japan stuff I've seen so far is similar to this, the Martel match, for example: 1. Long 10-15 minute "parity" segment consisting mainly of matwork. Face on top first, then Flair, but this is not "set". 2. Transition to some strikes, a high spot (suplex or piledriver) 3. Moving into finishing sequence. Usually the face will get this. 1-0 4. Flair steps up a gear and becomes more aggressive. He's frustrated at being outwrestled so he starts with the high-end offence. 5. After maybe a brief bit of matwork, transition to Flair working the leg. Typically a kneebreaker around here, big kneedrops, etc. Working towards figure-four. 6. Figurefour spot - either leading to submission 1-1 or reversal spot leading to pin or submission 1-1. 7. No messing about now, into the third fall and "the big battle". Pace steps up, Flair still aggressive, but babyface fighting back alot. 8. Trading of suplexes and strikes. 9. Transition to finish. To AN EXTENT, that formula seems to be how ALL 2/3 matches in 80s All Japan were worked, but Flair sticks to that. He doesn't necessarily make it become a "Flair match". He works it like an 80s All Japan match. My other example is vs. Sam Housten or another JTTS / jobber: 1. Flair toys with jobber in a smug and superior way and focuses on working the crowd. 2. Flair does something to underestimate the jobber who ends up getting in offence. 3. This pisses Flair off who regains control. 4. Flair aggressive now and starts systematically DESTROYING jobber. 5. Flair in position to pin jobber, but opts instead to dish out more punishment, he's got a point to prove. 6. He gets so carried away, another babyface has to run in to make the save. I could keep going, but the point is that THAT match has significant structural differences from the All Japan match, which is different again from the mainevent Crockett / travelling champ match. Yes, they are all variations on the same formula, but then SO IS EVERY MATCH EVER. Thoughts?

Loss, your post from May 4th 2009 is incredible

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them. Is that a bad thing though? Would you like to see a match where Sting doesn't do any of his frog splashes or where Flair doesn't attempt the figure four or doesn't flip or flop? What would that match look like? They talked about this on the Wrestling Culture podcast recently, but I never understood the knock on Flair as being a formula guy. How should the match look? Heel shine, babyface dominates, heel comeback? I mean I don't get what people want. Flair changed his shit up far more than, say, Hogan or Bret did. I've been thinking about making a thread on this. But I reckon I've found at LEAST 5 different Flair formulas that he used in the 1980s. Maybe one was appropriate for Sting, one for a jobber or lesser opponent, one for a 2/3 falls, one for Japanese opponents, one for 60-minute broadways. That's 5 different match structures. Who else could we do that with? Especially from the 1980s. Funk, sure, Lawler, sure. Who else? Seriously, this is one of those things that winds me up. Do people who complain about supposed lack of variety want Flair to do hurricaneranas? Does anyone think he worked Sting the same as he worked Steamboat the same as he worked Jumbo the same as he worked Martel the same as he worked Race, Bockwinkel, or Sam Housten? Such a silly argument. Not saying anyone here is saying that, but it always gets me.

I've only written up the MSG cage match, and I really didn't like it at all. I talked about it in Match #18 of the WWF Thread on tOA. Is that the one where the fan jumps on the cage? It's been about 5-6 years, but I remember the one from Wrestlefest (07/30/88) being the best of the series. The SNME match from before WM4 (03/07/88) is also better than the Mania match. I can't remember 4/25/88 or 5/27/88 - both MSG - at all. Steel cage match was 6/25/88. Did the WWF do monthly shows at MSG in 88? From what I can remember though the Wrestlefest and pre-Mania SNME match were the best. Vaguely recall a shitty little match Savage had with Virgil during this feud as well. ------------------- SIDE NOTE: Incidentally, I remember going through hell trying to source that Macho Madness tapein PAL format here in the UK. Of all the tapes I bought, that one was by far the hardest to get hold of. It wasn't even an original copy I bought in the end for something like £15. If anyone who knows how can PM me info about getting some of my old Coliseum tapes transferred to computer or onto DVD I wouldn't mind doing it. I imagine MOST of the stuff on my tapes is freely available online, but some of the more obscure ones like this Macho Madness tape may have a couple of gems on them. Have things like WF011 The Amazing Managers or WF060 Best of the WWF #17 or WF063 Brains Behind the Brawn turned up? These were the other really hard ones to get hold of about 8 years ago when I spent over £2k (MADNESS) amassing my collection. I imagine all the Wrestlefests and Supertapes and stuff like that are abundently available. The tapes from 90-94 were always much more easily available than the old lines, but I understand this is because of when wrestling boomed here in the the UK, plus VHS becoming easier to buy / cheaper as a medium.

jdw - what about Ted in 88?

I think Ted DiBiase deserves a mention for Savage. Their 1988 series around the horn seems REALLY underrated to me (all the matches on the Macho Madness tape from 88 are at least ***1/2 to **** imo). And there are some nice continuity pieces too: their involvement in any Royal Rumble together, including the implied bribery (in was it 90?). I think Ted runs Warrior close for that 5th spot. With Warrior it's just two memorable matches really (WM7 and SS92), with Ted is was a long-running thing. If we did Top 5 for DiBiase, Savage would definitely be one of them. Something like: 1. Duggan 2. Hogan 3. Savage 4. Jake 5. Virgil (?) JYD (?)

For Sting, I'd argue: 1. Vader 2. Flair 3. Cactus Jack 4. Regal 5. Great Muta He may not have had ongoing issues with the last 3 but if I had to do a "best ever Sting matches" list, outside of Flair and Vader, I don't see what else would come above those. If you think about it, for such a top babyface, Sting was pretty much directionless for large stretches of his career, wasn't he. I mean ANGLES wise, this would be a lot easier to do for Hogan than it is for Sting.

Seriously, this thread has shocked me. Have either of the world titles ever been as meaningless as they are now? The Jack Swagger run is a fucking joke.

I think (kayfabe) screwjobs on Hogan would be the order of the day. e.g. in that enviornment GM Jack Tunney takes a bribe from DiBiase and he's allowed to buy the belt too. I mean in EACH of the cases you pointed out, apart from Warrior, Hogan only laid down after strong interference anyway: 2/88 vs. Andre was the evil ref angle 11/91 vs. Taker was Flair coming in with a chair and Hogan taking a Tombstone on the chair 5/93 vs. Yokozuna was a Japanese cameraman shooting his face with fire Point being none of these are "clean jobs". Hogan wasn't really putting any of those guys "over" because they were all tainted wins that the Hulkamaniacs could bitch and moan about afterwards. Wouldn't it just be that notched up a bit?

Jack Swagger has been champ? Really? I give up.

It seems I've massively, massively underestimated the extent to which they hotshot titles now. The idea of Bossman as world champ is frankly ridiculous. Who has been the equivalent of, say, Greg Valentine in the 00s? Why does Beefcake get one? That would be like Billy Gunn being champ in 1999, no? This is so far away from what I consider to be sensible booking that I almost can't process it.

Steve Austin Bunkhouse Buck Rick Rude Arn Anderson Ted Dibiase

My reasons for not watching modern stuff are nothing to do with the quality of matches, sure there are great matches all the time, it's to do with the style of the presentation and the general vibe. I like the vibe of 80s Crockett, kayfabe era WWF, 80s territories in general. I don't like the general sort of gothy crappy punk nu metal vibe wrestling has had for years now. I'm probably the shallowest wrestling fan who posts here insomuch as I care more about that sort of thing and promos than I do about matches. I get as much joy from seeing that old couple sitting front row centre in 80s Watts as I do from watching the actual wrestling. Modern wrestling gives no such joy. I don't know if I'm in the minority on that. The only two things I've seen in "recent years" that I enjoyed were the Punk shoot and Flair going apeshit on Carlito. A part of me dies everytime I see Randy Orton's face. Don't care if he's the best wrestler ever to step in the ring, I hate everything about him. Which goes for like 95% of the guys on the current roster. I'm not a fan of wrestling per se, I'm a fan of wrestling in a particular time and place. A certain vibe. I'd take Black Scorpion crap from 1990 over the 2011 MotY, true story.

I was just picking up on jdw's point of "anyone notable". I think there are more candidates before 1985 than after it. That was sort of the point I was alluding to. i.e. during Hogan's big run I'm not sure anyone else other than Savage and DiBiase would have got a run.

Dylan made a really effective case for Patera to be considered in different terms from what he usually is on this. I have to admit that I'm a guy who'd written him off for sure. In particular because he delivered the worst promo in the history of wrestling, it's laugh out loud funny:

You say this but who really would have got runs after 1985? Let's just stick with WWF for now: Greg Valentine NO Tito Santana NO Roddy Piper MAYBE King Kong Bundy NO Junkyard Dog NO Bob Orton NO Davey Boy Smith NO The Dynamite Kid NO Paul Orndorf MAYBE Don Muraco MAYBE Adrian Adonis NO Jake Roberts NO Hercules NO Rick Martel NO Tom Zenk NO Jim Neidhart NO Brutus Beefcake NO Butch Reed HIGHLY VERY SLIGHT POSSIBILITY Honky Tonk Man NO Ron Bass NO One Man Gang NO Ken Patera MAYBE Rick Rude NO Bam Bam Bigelow HIGHLY DOUBTFUL Ted DiBiase YES Big Bossman NO Dino Bravo NO Bad News Brown NO The Barbarian NO The Warlord NO Mr. Perfect NO Arn Anderson NO Tully Blanchard NO Jim Duggan NO Haku NO I could go on and on. Only Dibiase seems to be a definite YES.

Around 82-3 sort of time I think Snuka and Slaughter may have both had runs. Don Muraco may also have had a run in a sort of Batista role.

I've almost set this up for Dylan to mention Ken Patera for the late 70s. I got the idea listening to their latest pod. You say "more heels" Loss, but aside from DiBiase and Piper, I don't see ANY of the other heels getting runs in the 00s: Jake Robets, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude. I don't see it. WCW Rick Rude would have for sure. But not the 88-9 Rude. Thinking Andre would be a 8-9-time world champ by the time of WM3.

Thought this might be worth discussing. Particularly interested in what sorts of people would have been in the mix in the Backlund and Race eras, late 70s / early 80s sort of time. Later in the 80s, I think it goes without saying that DiBiase would have had a title run in 00s style booking. Probably Roddy Piper too.

[phantom double post]

Hurt in what ways ? To get a job in the WWF, yes. Otherwise, I don't see it as a problem, especially for heels. I like my old school wrestlers with bellies. I think it hurt because - at least in the case of RnR and the Freebirds - part of the gimmick is that they were pretty boys who girls screamed for. Now, I've said it many times, that RnR were two of the ugliest guys I've ever seen, but the fact is they had girls screaming. How can you have girls screaming being THAT ugly AND with a beer gut when you've got the likes of Shawn Michaels in the Rockers in WWF or even people like Zenk around in WCW? Freebirds in the early 90s were just sad.