JerryvonKramer

Will do my best to answer these. - Where did Bill Watts not have mastery over his crowd? What is the difference between an 8 and a 10? 1992 - How does 80s Vince get a 10 for mastery over his crowd during the same period when Watts' cards tended to be more heated from top to bottom? It's close. As I mentioned. Watts's 92 is factored into a composite rating. I feel like Watts made more meaningful cards and feuds, but every single guy on the WWF roster above about Sam Houston level feels very over in that period. WWF Koko B. Ware seems more over to me than Mid-South Terry Taylor. - How does 90s Vince get a 10 for talent spotting? He let Hogan, Savage and Piper go at a time when they all had plenty left in the tank. He had failed experiments with Luger and Diesel. He gets a 10 for the number of stars he made in that era which are so many that wrestling is only just now recovering from their stranglehold. For every failed Luger experiment, there's a HHH or Kane. It reminds me of when Sir Alex Ferguson ripped apart his first double-winning side, selling people like Andrei Kanchelskis, Paul Ince, and Mark Hughes, star players at the time. But it allowed youngsters like Gary Neville, Paul Scholes and David Beckham to come through and become stars. Kanchelskis, Ince and Hughes still had plenty of years left in them, but Ferguson had a longer term plan. Vince did something similar. I'd like to think that this is the first time Ferguson and Vince have been compared in this way. But the ability to break up winning teams and rebuild them over a long period is something they have in common. Football fans are probably less petulant than wrestling fans, so Fergie gets total respect, whereas all anyone seems to do is shit on Vince. - Why is mastery over crowd so low for Dusty and Crockett? Simply put because I can think of many occasions when crowds reacted in ways they weren't meant to. In general, I think the Crockett crowds were snarkier and worse behaved than most promotions, especially when they tried to run Chicago, and their Baltimore cards. Dusty was booed a lot towards the end. I've seen the Fantastics booed. I've seen the Rock n Rolls booed. I've seen Steamboat booed. I've seen Flair cheered as a heel countless times. It wasn't their strong suit in my view. - Eric Bischoff turned a $55m net profit in 1998, which I believe is still the most profitable year a wrestling company has ever had. I realize he had money losing years too, but how do you come up with 2 in that category? Surely, having the single most profitable year in wrestling history has to count for more than a 2, right? It's especially something I don't understand when Heyman comes out higher in that category. I think I gave Heyman too high a rating. Bichoff gets a 2 because he put people on stupid huge guaranteed contracts and ended up running the thing into the ground. The 2 is a recognition of a brief firework that fizzed and crackled and dazzled for moment, but it was just a moment.

He and Lex were the top two babyfaces in JCP/WCW in 1988. Jake wasn't one of the top two faces or heels in the WWF in 1986. Heck, we'd have to try to figure out when he was at that level in the WWF for any sustained period like Sting became in 1988. If you read on you'll see I meant 87 rather than 88. I was specifically thinking of the period when he got that big reaction during the 6-man.

Why didn't anyone mention that Flair's show is back with MLW and has been since July 1st? The last show was a 90-minute talk with Greg Valentine! And he talked to Ken Patera for almost 2 hours.

There's probably a missing statistic here, which is something like - Ability to get someone over For example, Vince Sr. had a formula for getting heels over in the area: 1. Rub from manager (Wizard / Blassie / Albano), 2. Go over established babyface (Strongbow / Denucci), 3. DQ / CO win over champ x 2, 4. Pinned by champ, 5. Job to established babyface on the way out (Putski / Strongbow), 6. Transfer heat to manager Process then starts again in a perfect loop of constant heel heat, which could get anyone over. So while Vince Sr didn't get over many new stars, he had a brilliant way of introducing new workers to the area. ---------- I'd argue that the greatest at this was ... well, it's Vince Jr again, especially late 80s with the skits leading up to debut (see DiBiase and Perfect skits). Even watching that Jericho one earlier he said in the promo "If you don't know me, my name is Chris Jericho". Vince always pretty much started on the assumption that the audience wouldn't know a guy and built them from the ground up. One notable exception is actually Hogan himself in 1984, where if you actually watch that footage he's introduced as "coming BACK to the WWF" and they acknowledge the previous heel run. Just interesting to consider in the context of this thread.

I don't disagree with any of this, but look at Bischoff's ratings: Mastery over crowd: 3 Innovation: 7 Angles: 4 Quality of Cards: 8 Finances: 2 Talent spotting / New stars: 0 The stuff you've said lies primarily behind the two numbers I've bolded there. You might ask why they are so low. And it's because Bischoff seems to be a guy whose really great ideas you can count on one hand (Hogan's heel turn, NWO, Crow Sting, Nitro, Goldberg's streak) and yet each and every one of them made a huge impact. I realise that Kevin Sullivan might have actually been the ideas man in some of these cases, but the buck stopped with Eric. Maybe you can edit the title from "Booker" to "Promoter" because that's essentially what we're looking at. For example, it might have been Bill Dundee, Ernie Ladd, or Buck Robley booking for Watts, but his keen eye for detail and presentational skills, his insistence on logic and so on, are still the hallmarks of his promotion. Vince has had dozens of guys booking for him over the years, and yet his handprints are all over everything that goes out. I guess it's like we say that Snow White and Pinnochio are Walt Disney films even though he didn't even write or direct either of them, but his personal vision was driving it.

Right, but Sika had shots against Hogan in 1987. Just having a main event match in itself doesn't make someone a "star". I don't think Sika was a particularly big star in 1987 (for example), or that putting him in that slot (I think he was subbing for Kamala), made him one. I mean, if you want to argue that Tito's Houston and AWA runs made him a "big star" by 1982, go for it. I'm not convinced, and credit Vince not Verne or Boesch for "making Tito a star". It's not because I have some pro-Vince bias, it's just because I don't think he was a big star before 1984. Maybe everyone figures that out in their own way. You HAVE to credit Watts for DiBiase, Duggan and JYD, for example, but I wouldn't credit him with Warrior or Sting. He just gave them a job. The Jericho example is the easiest one because you can see how in WCW he goes from feuding with Perry Saturn to .... sharing screentime with The Rock in a debut that I can still remember 17 years later. Eric gave him a job, but Vince made him a star.

We didn't realize how big Tito was in Houston. Boesch gave him the Gold Cup in 81. It's tricky to guage how big a star someone was in the territory era. Houston is just one town. I tend to see it in terms of how in-demand someone was and where on the card they'd work if they were brought in. Tito may have been in Houston main events, but I don't see him going into somewhere like GCW or Crockett in top-level feuds, and I don't see him having an explosive impact like, say, Piper in GCW. If a top top star is someone like Dusty -- NWA title contender, in-demand everywhere, MSG bookings, headlining Omni cards, Greensboro cards, headlining shows in Florida. Undeniably a star. He's going to pop a gate, or make a definite "before" and "after" type impact on a territory. The Freebirds would be an act along those lines. Michael Hayes was undeniably "a star" at this time. On a sliding scale somewhere down the other end you've got someone like a Doug Somers, just a journeyman, not a star at all. You also then having home-steading stars like Lawler in Memphis, Tommy Rich in Georgia, Bruno or Backlund in WWF and so on and so forth. To anchor a territoy is a big deal. I don't see Tito as being in that sort of bracket. I don't really see Jack in that sort of bracket either, but maybe I should, I dunno.

I can actually pinpoint the exact moment that Chris Jericho became a star. Here it is:

Tito was a big star in 84-5, around the time he was IC champ. I don't think he was a big star before that, and that star had gone by 87 at the latest as he slid down the card. Jake, I don't know, cos Kris and others seem to think he was a significant territory star in a way that I don't really recognise. I'll be honest, I just don't see him in those terms, but there's disagreement over it. I'd have said 86 with him until about 91. He's still a big enough star to come into the main event at Havoc 92. He wasn't Jericho vs. Gedo level that's for sure.

I think it's completely obvious based on common sense and nothing else. Dean vs. Jericho was a lower card feud. Jericho facing off against Gedo low down on that card. You can't really compare that to feuds like Jake vs. Ted or Jake vs. Savage where it's the second or third point of interest on a card between two guys with real heat who have main evented. Does that need defining or explaining? Really?

And still I ask: was Jericho as big a star in 1997 as DiBiase, Jake, Rude, Honky, Bossman, and co in the late 80s? I'd love to see someone lay out the argument that he was. I'm picking Jericho cos I think out of him, Eddie, Rey, Benoit etc., he was probably the biggest star in WCW terms. Comes down to two things: 1. size of roster (average in late 80s, around 50 workers for WWF, average in late 90s, 90+ workers for WCW) 2. number of main eventers In the late 80s, the main event scence consists of basically 3-4 people at any given time. It's Hogan, Savage, and then take your pick of two of a rotating cast of heels who can move up and down the card as necessary. In the late 90s, the main event comprises Hogan, Giant, Hall, Nash, Luger, Sting, Flair even, Savage, Goldberg eventually, DDP eventually ... there are a LOT of names before you get to Jericho. Maybe even Steiner Brothers ahead of him.

As far as I know Vince Sr booked from a little hotel room with a bunch of old guys in there.

I asked you before: do you think Jericho in 97 was as over and "big" as someone like Jake or Honky in 87? Did he headline B-circuit house shows? I guess what I'm saying is that it meant more to be a mid-carder in 87 WWF and in 97 WCW. It's because WCW had THAT much many more main eventers whereas WWF it was Hogan and opponent for the best part. The gap between Hogan and Rude in 89 is bigger than the gap between him and Jericho in 97

Do you think pre-WWF Jake was a star on the level of Ted, Piper, Greg, Duggan, or Steamboat? If so, completely news to me. Just never thought about his GCW or Watts runs in that way and I've watched most of the Watts stuff. Don't see him in that light. How much does it underrate him not to?

No. We're just pointing out why Parv is full of shit and double talk with his own criterias. It's fun. To some extent. What is this? Just use common sense. Jake became a star in WWF, whereas DiBiase, Piper, Valentine, Steamboat, and Duggan were already stars before they came. It's not criteria it's just basic facts. Hall and Nash were stars before they jumped to WCW, Benoit and co much like Jake in the 80s didn't really become big stars until their WWF runs. There's no double talk: just facts and common sense. Apply some.

Actually you know what you're right, it's late and I was thinking about that six-man (in 87?) and forgot all about Clash 1!!! I'd agree he choked in 90; I'd also agree he felt like the bigger star in 88. Just pick another example because Jake wasn't Sting in 88 over in Mid-South but he arguably was in WWF as both heel and face.

It's possible I've underrated pre-WWF Jake to an extent but I really don't see him as a "star" on par with guys like Ted, Piper, Valentine, and so on -- it's hazy water but if you look at the examples of DiBiase and Piper, say, they are demonstrable stars with signature runs. Jake doesn't feel like that sort of guy to me. And his WWF run seems like a big elevation. If it'll make you happy we can give Martel to Verne. Even if we do, the number of original stars he made was relatively small considering how long he had the promotion.

There's a difference between a crowd reaction and being a big star. Sting got big crowd reactions in 1988; he wasn't a big star until 1990.

Are you two being purposely fucking obtuse? Are you trying to wind me up? Jake wasn't a big star until he jumped to WWF and he blew up some time after 86. You can pinpoint that SNME match with Savage, and he was huge. He wasn't huge in Watts land. Benoit wasn't a big star until he was main evening Wrestlemanias. Stop being such nitpicking childish moronic cunts and use your common sense for fuck's sake.

Watts gets credit for JYD, DiBiase, Duggan, Steve Williams, One Man Gang, and Butch Reed, but I don't feel I can give him Jake. Here is the ever dependable Jake Roberts himself on the matter: Yes, the feud with Slater and he held the NA title, but you know a masked bloke called The Nightmare also held that. Jake in Watts land seems distinctly Mid-Card-y to me and certainly was nowhere near as over as he was in WWF. Come on.

Giant is one I forgot about, and you could probably give him that. Raven is clearly a Heyman star. When were the others put in drawing positions by Bischoff? And who among them was as big a star in the 90s as Jake was in the 80s? Wasn't Eric gone by the time Booker T and Scott Steiner got their big pushes? Were they *cough* Russo / Ferrera stars? I can't remember exactly, but I want to say he was gone. Not that we can remotely pretend that Eric Bischoff or Vince Russo made Scott Steiner a star. Since he was clearly already a big star by 1992 at the latest. I'm defining "star" as someone who is over, can be put in main events and drawing positions with name recognition. Someone like Jake is actually a good bubble man as a benchmark. The Hall / Nash example is instructive here. Because when they turned up on WCW TV it *meant* something. People already knew who they were and it was a major deal. Now you could say the same thing about Radicalz, but look back on that and was it really the same? It seemed more like each of those guys turned up with something to prove rather than as big already-established stars. Here is the ever-dependable Wikipedia on the matter: A stable led by Shane Douglas ... Does that smack of big star to you?

Want to go over this so El-P doesn't think that my 10 for 90s Vince and 0 for Eric in the new stars category isn't some imagined bias. First, here's an example of a 6: New stars made by Vince in the 80s: Honkytonk Man Ultimate Warrior Ravishing Rick Rude Tito Santana Jake Roberts Randy Savage Big Boss Man Demolition Davey Boy Smith Brutus Beefcake These were guys who were all over and who could be put in drawing positions who primarily made their name in WWF. Note, I've not given him Hogan, Piper, DiBiase, Duggan, Valentine, Hennig, etc. etc. Even though all of those guys drew and made far more money with Vince than they ever did with anyone else. That's a SIX In the 90s, there are many more than that, which is why it's a 10. Here are the new stars made by Bischoff: Goldberg DDP When you have the best roster of all time, and you have the machinery of Turner behind you, that's a zero.

I followed up on this and he said that he couldn't afford an observer sub till 2000. Let's make this easier: I will retract my single apportioning of blame to Meltzer, let's just say the lines of influence are too hard to untangle, and instead let's give the blame to every single person who contibuted to the rspw FAQ. In a way that means jdw is in some way responsible for smarky crowds, which seems about right.

Care to elaborate or are you just going to be an abusive twat as usual? Kobashi was monumentally over in that timeframe and some bookers, it seems to me, would have accelerated to the Misawa feud to capitalise on the hotness rather than slow burn through the set stages of Baba's traditional plan of gradual elevation. Going over Gordy, winning CC, beating Hansen after several attempts, and so on is a slow burn elevation in Baba's own time. He didn't put the title on him till 96. So what exactly about this makes me a special kind of stupid?

I mean if we really want to go back to the 90s, who remembers reading this? http://rspw.org/faq/4-keithfaq.txt I do. Very clearly actually. Or at least some version of it. The experience was mind blowing. How anyone can read that and think that S. Keith wasn't influenced by Meltzer, I don't know. I notice jdw is thanked himself in Appendix E. Also quite funny that he takes a moment to thank Dory Funk Jr and then follows it with "just kidding". Suggesting Keith wasn't influenced by Meltzer is somewhere in the ball park of suggesting that a 13th century Catholic Dominican monk who actually studied in Toulouse, wasn't influenced by Thomas Aquinas. I don't understand the claim at all. Edit: well I asked him and he's confirmed it with a caveat: "although he's an actual journalist and I'm just a guy blathering about wrestling."