JerryvonKramer

I just watched the Lawler vs. Austin Idol match and that is 100% the hulking up, no-selling comeback. He does it here against Terry Funk too, 6 minutes in: There is no problem with this. The vast majority of wrestling matches have this spot, and it makes perfect logical sense: the fired-up babyface is high on adrenaline and so can take a few punches or whatever as he's caught up in the moment. In real life, people can do all sorts of amazing thing on adrenaline. The problem only comes when guys act like they are fresh or haven't taken any punishment AFTER that. If they've been selling a leg the whole match but then forget about it after their arm is raised. I don't think anyone is accusing Lawler of that. We're talking a 30-second spurt of energy here. Unless I've missed something.

Hogan vs. Warrior is actually a very standard match when you break it down. Who was working heel then?

Without wishing to get into a big Shawn discussion, I think the problem for him as a face in 1996 wasn't his work or his character, but his gimmick. A "Sexy Boy"? The "Heartbreak Kid"? Are you kidding me? If 90% of wrestling fans are male, is that really going to get over as something to cheer? This is perhaps illustrated with a photo: I'll just come right out and say it: he looked gay. Since when has that been a babyface gimmick in wrestling?

What about Warrior vs. Hogan?

Just watched this. Why did I? On the one hand, Flair took a suplerplex. On the other, he looks like death warmed up and this ended up being all about Hogan anyway. He should have retired in 2008. He had the perfect send off. I'm going to pretend his TNA run isn't happening and never happened.

This is more of a question than anything. We all know the basic formulas for singles matches (shine > heat > comeback > finish) and tag matches (shine > face in peril > hot tag> finish). What I'm wondering about is alternative structures. For example, on the All Japan set, few if any of the matches seem to conform to the standard American face vs. heel formula. If anything the structure there, from what I've seen after 4 discs is: Matwork (face dominates) > matwork (heel dominates) > transition to bigger impact moves until nearfall > back to matwork > transition to strikes and high spots > finish There seems to be a new structure for big WWE PPV matches now too, for example HBK vs. Undertaker with a lot of hitting of finishers and false finishes. What are some of the other structures you can identify? For example, is there a different formula when you've got a complete chicken shit hell like Honky Tonk Man? Or I'm thinking about Hogan vs. Flair in 1994 where it seemed like Hogan had 95% of the offense.

Ok, I've been taking in the old Raven Secrets of the Ring shoots and thought it might be an idea to discuss who is best at each of the components we get in a typical match structure. So here I want your picks for who you think was or is particularly excellent at each of the following things. If you can give examples of what they do well that would be fantastic. Thought it could be fun to see what sort of things people value. So let's start as the Raven series does with faces: Best shine Best selling (heat segment) Best hope spots Best fire Best comeback I might as well give some of my own picks: Best shine: this is a very tough one to think of, but I'm going to say pre-Crow Sting. The crowd was so hot for him and he'd have the energy of Warrior running in with good-looking offence and the heel was almost guaranteed to draw heat from pulling out a cheap shot to break his momentum. Best selling: got to be Steamboat hasn't it? I'd actually like to mention Hogan here though. At least in the 80s, he spent 90% of his matches getting beaten up and I can't think of many better at drawing the sympathy of the crowd. He always looked like he was really hurt up until hulking up. He might not have flung himself around the ring or taken punches as if they were gun shots like Steamboat, but he did always sell effectively and did enough to make both his opponent look good and to have the crowd 100% on his side. Best hope spots: Again I find it hard to look past Steamboat here, and also late 80s/ early 90s Sting, but I'll try to be more interesting. For the sheer amount of different ones he has, how about Shawn Michaels? He was great at these when he was in The Rockers, but is at his best when working against big men -- like a Kane or an Undertaker, when he seems like he's completely dominated. Best fire: I've been watching All Japan recently and I like Jumbo's fire, but it's difficult to look past Terry Funk for this. To be honest, I could have said Funk for all of them, but don't think there's a better fired up face than Funk in early 80s AJPW. Best comeback: Boringly, I'm going to go with Hogan. It's so iconic that I can't think of who might do it better. Look forward to seeing the suggestions of others.

Two for the price of one today because the forum was down when I did Uncensored '96. Both pretty rubbish shows. Any feedback welcome as ever, but would particularly like some detail on Jeeves. Uncensored '96: http://www.parviniworld.com/Uncensored96.html Slamboree '96: http://www.parviniworld.com/Slamboree96.html

The second Barry Windham shoot is good too. I like the interviewer there. The first one I remember being really good as well.

I've always been a fan of the Guest Booker series. Although some are much better than others. Other ones I've enjoyed have been: Cornette and Heenan, especially volume 3 when they are up in the attic going through old posters and things. There's a great one with Jake Roberts talking about psychology. Ummm. I seem to remember one with Bret Hart along those lines too, I think it was a series.

The problem I've got is mainly with the total lack of homework on display. On the Regal one, he was talking about working in England and Europe in 1987 and the guy was like "so how did your move to WCW come about?". I was like "bloody hell, obviously that's about 6 years away" and I don't even know that much about Regal. Then when you get to WCW he's skipping forward to the Blue Bloods after about 2 minutes. The massive TV title run gets completely no-sold, and it's CLEAR Regal was ready to talk about it. Just a totally inept interviewer. I think that's one of the worst I've heard. Regal sounds pretty low on it, but he was ready to talk and a good interviewer would have been able to get much better material out of him. I don't think he's ever done another one, so that's a real wasted opportunity. You get the impression that ALL some of these guys wanted back then was wrestlers to bad mouth others, dish the dirt on others and so on. In the Vader one, for example, I don't recall them asking about Ron Simmons -- not once. No questions about the differences between Jim Herd, Kipp Frey and Bill Watts. They talked about the matches with Sting but never asked him which one he thought was best. PLENTY of stuff about working with Foley, naturally, but then entire feuds (e.g. with Bossman) completely ignored. I wouldn't mind the Q&A format so much if they actually spent five minutes and did their homework before hand. And homework consists of more than just looking them up on Wikipedia! I also listened to the Jimmy Hart one from 2001 a few days ago. Again Highspots. That one was a teensy bit better because they did give a good hour to Memphis, but they really lost structure when they started discussing WWF and WCW. It was like they wanted to skip from managing the Honky Tonk Man to his run with Hulk.

Been listening to a few old old shoots like the Vader one from 98 and the Regal one from 99 as well as the Luger one. One thing that has REALLY REALLY bugged me is the interviewers not asking the right questions, or just showing themselves up for a complete lack of knowledge. They just seem like your typical IWC smarks of the time, anything Bret or Shawn or ECW and they are all over it, but such a lack of detail in the questioning elsewhere. Irritating.

I know I am digging this one up, but ... I have been listening to old podcasts at work, and coincidentally was listening to this one at the same time in my watching rotation I am watching the keith_h Steiners comp and watched for the first time the 1991 WarGames. I was looking for it and did catch the "Are you ready?" "Yeah!" "Then let's go!" exchange between Sid and Rick Steiner before Rick reverses the whip to send Sid into a Scott Steiner clothesline that Rob N references in the podcast. Officially the first time I have caught somebody audibly calling a spot in a match. There's a really loud one at Survivor Series 1990 when it's Bret Hart vs. DiBiase and you can hear Ted shout "reverse, charge" pretty audibly.

The thing that confuses me is that he comes across as not being the brightest guy in the world too, if you know what I mean. And this constant insistence that he always just did what he was told, never questioned booking decisions, etc. I can't square this guy with the portrait of the prima donna, smart businessman who didn't give a shit we're always told about.

Just a real quick straw poll here. I've been listening to the Luger shoot (RF) and he just comes across as a really nice, humble down-to-earth guy. Nothing like his rep suggests at all. How much of that is him trying to paint himself in a good light and how much is it just true? I can't help but feel that Luger is treated unfairly because he was always an industry outsider.

* Taped fist match against Pillman at SuperBrawl I? Well it's not the best match on that card. I mean it's solid but it's not a bona-fide classic or anything. I'd expect Windham vs. Pillman to be a ***** affair for how much both guys are praised and it was a ***1/2 at best. Windham had a taped fist for about 3 years didn't he. That was pretty funny. * SuperBrawl II tag with Dustin against Austin and Zbyszko? It's better a lot better than the average tag match involving Dustin from the period. But possibly because of just how hot the rest of the card is (Rude/ Steamboat, Liger/ Pillman) it doesn't stand out for me. I don't recall thinking it was any better than Arn/ Eaton vs. the Steiners that followed it. Then again, Superbrawl II is a legit top 5 ppv of all time, so that's not taking away from that match. Yeah, I'll give you that one as a great match. * His performance in both the War Games '91 and '92 matches? I'd have to rewatch them for Windham's specific performances, but they are both bonfa-fide ***** matches in my book. I remember Steamboat and Arn being the MVPs for the 92 match. And can't think of '91 without thinking of the Sid/ Pillman spot. * Tag with Dustin against Rude and Austin at the GAB in '92? GAB '92 is one of the dullest shows I can remember seeing because it is just so straight-laced -- as if JR was turning the clock back to the early 70s or something -- and watts was pushing MVC to the moon. I just seem to remember there being a shit ton of bland matwork on this show and I can't remember that match being anything tbh.

Loss - I think you could move this to comments that don't deserve a thread. I didn't think it would be so unanimous that 96 was his most evil run. But seems like it is so thread over.

I don't know, maybe it's because things came so easy to him that he always seemed lazy to me, like he wasn't putting in any effort and was half-arsing it. He seemed to get blown up really really quickly. I mean I've watched all those early 90s PPVs recently and there's really only 3 stand-out matches there: Windham and Muta vs. 2 Cold Scorpio and Brian Pillman from Starrcade '92 and then Douglas and Steamboat vs. Windham and Pillman from the same show (although he looks out of shape in the second match). Then the match with Arn Anderson at Slamboree '93. In 93, he had a shitty match with Muta (to win NWA title) and then a shitty match with Flair (to lose it). I don't really understand the love. He seems ridiculously overrated.

No, I'm with you there. He even said it himself on a shoot: he's the most overrated worker of all time. That suplex into a pin he does is really sweet though.

I've been watching the PPVs from 1996 of late (pre-Bash at the Beach), and the thing that has really struck me is how sadistic and downright EVIL Flair is in that feud with Savage. I mean he doesn't just want to bring Savage low, he wants to humiliate him and take his life away. It's quite a dark storyline -- going back all the way to Slamboree 95 when he beats on Angelo Poffo, then slowly takes away his wife, his title, and his money. The pure dickery of Flair in this period is something to behold. He is particularly cowardly in hiding behind Arn like a little girl quite a lot during this run as well (see promo on McMichael and Kevin Greene at Slamboree '96, which I watched earlier tonight). I've found it striking just how heelish is in that period. Question: is there ever a time when he's MORE EVIL than that? Seems to me that for most of the 80s there was something honourable about Flair's character. Yes, he had the arrogant promos, women, flash suits etc., but then he'd wrestle hour broadways every night and show he was a legit great athlete, etc. '96 Flair is just a bastard and a chicken shit pure and simple. I'm thinking it might be Flair at his most dastardly.

For some reason, I think of him as a New Japan guy first and foremost. I still have the New Japan set to watch. I did receive it before AJPW, but started watching the latter because I want to make the ballot. I agree that there's a hell of a lot of Jumbo and Baba on there, which can make it a bit grueling.

Interesting that you list Dynamite and then state your preference for New Japan. Care to elaborate a bit?

Mil Mascaras. I don't know if he's a guy I should like, but I've hated pretty much everything involving him on the All Japan set. He's slow, his offense is lame and unrealistic, his matwork is boring and unenthusiastic. The ONLY good thing about Mascaras is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87JPhX-5_Mg Am I alone in my total dislike of him?

On a little tangent here, but how do people think Hogan's character changed between 84 and 96? Do you think the Hulkster character was essentially the same during all the time, or are there subtle shifts? And if so, what are they?