JerryvonKramer

I think Warrior's win-loss ratio is pretty good.

For bad commentators, how about Ted DiBiase on colour? He worked both with Vince and with Bischoff. Only thing that comes to mind is the total over-selling of Undertaker's burial in the casket match vs. Yokozuna at Royal Rumble '94. Also, about that show. One thing I've always wondered about is why they swtiched from DiBiase and McMahon to JR and Gorilla. Was that just a shill for WWF Radio?

Quick question: what's the difference between the "ace" of a Japanese promotion and the top babyface of an American one? For example, what's the difference between Jumbo in 80s All Japan and Hogan in 80s WWF? I've just seen the term "ace" bandied about and wondered about that.

So you like David Crockett but don't like Gorilla Monsoon?

1. Who is the main commentator on the All-Japan 80s set? 2. jdw - wasn't angry, just calling it like I saw it. Not necessarily my opinion, Gorilla is very fondly remembered by a lot of fans. I thought I detected contrariness.

Yoko wasn't the top guy though was he. Luger was. I think there's a massive difference between being pushed as a foreign monster heel champ against the all-American top babyface and what the Rock did in the late 90s. The strap is largely immaterial anyway. I don't know why such importance is placed on it. JYD was a bigger star than Yokozuna.

My view on Ross is that he's close to unbearable on Mid-South/UWF, just too much. Much much better in WCW, although his hard on for the college backgrounds of some people is a bit ridiculous sometimes. He sounds borderline gay for Luger at times. I mean properly homoerotic, like Luger is the living embodiment of all his schoolboy hopes, dreams and fantasies. He's a great play-by-play man though, for sure. I like him well into the Attitude era, probably up to the point -- and I hate to say it -- when he came back from the severe Bell's palsy attack in 1998. His homoerotic tendencies reached epic proportions during this period. STONE COLD! STONE COLD! STONE COLD! THE RATTLESNAKE!!!!! STONE COLD! STUNNER BAHH GGAAAWWDD STUNNER!!! STONE COLD! I didn't like all that. --------------------- I'm also going to say I think there's a lot of snobbery and mainstream backlash going on here against Gorilla Monsoon and the WWF boom period announce teams in general. So what if Monsoon called the guys out on the hooked leg to make himself look better, it made sense as a call. Has anyone ever stopped to think for a moment about the nonsense being spouted here? Monsoon got himself over more than the talent? So how come that roster was full of the most over guys arguably in wrestling history? Was that all DESPITE Monsoon? Give me a break.

jdw, would it be fair to say that you generally dislike old WWWF stalwarts?

I agree: 1. That Jesse and Gorilla had a very equal relationship of mutual respect. Jesse was always respectful with former wrestlers, but he'd naturally bully the pipsqueak broadcaster (Vince or Schiavone) 2. That the Uncle Elmer bit is the most amazing piece of commentary Jesse ever did. Another point I'd like to make: I think the BIG BIG difference between Ventura and Heenan is that Ventura would concede certain points, his support for the heels was sometimes subtle because he'd always maintain a veneer of objectivity AND the stuff he'd call the faces on were almost always 100% true - Hacksaw using the 2x4, snot coming out of his nose, Hogan posing in the ring for 5-10 minutes, Warrior running around like an idiot, etc. etc. Jesse always seemed like he was putting forward a rational, coherent argument. Many times McMahon came across as the irrational loon. Jesse was GREAT at taking the heel side in such a way that it seemed like a reasonable point of view. A great example is at one of the Wrestlemanias when Ronnie Garvin does the Garvin stomp on Frenchie Martin (Dino Bravo's manager), Jesse massively condemns that action and he seems right to do so. Heenan, on the other hand, always seemed crooked, or like he had an alterior motive. He was 100% on the heel side and took that to cartoonish levels. He would not see reason, rarely conceded any ground to faces, etc. Heenan was a very different character from Ventura. Ventura was confident, articulate, intelligent and generally acted like a big star. He came across as independently minded with definite favourites (e.g. Rude) and least favourites (e.g. Hogan). Heenan was cowardly, sneaky, heelish, also intelligent and generally acted like he was up to something. He came across as someone with an agenda, who had allegiances and more of an active finger in different pies, he came across as expicitly batting for the heel team. I think this big difference informs and shapes each of their on-screen relationships. So I wouldn't say that the fact that Monsoon bullies Heenan is a PROBLEM, because when you get a former 400lb wrestler and a cowardly heelish manager together that is BOUND to happen. Just as if you get Ventura, who gives the illusion of being rational and balanced, McMahon is always going to sound like an OTT pro-face fanboy next to him. The only combination out of all of them that didn't quite work in my view was JR and Jesse, because Jesse never ruffled JR's feathers and so straightlaced sports nerd Jim Ross was allowed to be straightlaced sports nerd Jim Ross. Lawler was a much better partner for him because he pushed his buttons. Jesse could push the buttons of Monsoon, McMahon and Schiavone but not of Ross. Heenan could push the buttons of Monsoon and McMahon but, for whatever reason, not of Schiavone. In a weird way, I think Heenan and Tony were BETTER alongside Dusty, because they could share in "what the hell's he talking about" moments, and have moments where they gang up. Those relations are interesting: Tony and Bobby vs. Dusty on Dusty's ridiculous lingo Tony and Dusty vs. Bobby on whatever heelist shinnigans he has going on at the time Bobby and Dusty vs. Tony on making fun of the the way he calls moves so specifically and his ability to pluck exact dates of events out of thin air (e.g. "When was the last time Luger and Sting went at it Tony?" (without a pause) "Superbrawl II, Feburary 1991. Milwaukee" cue mockery from Dusty and Bobby).

At least there is one guy who is on the same page as me here.

But this is the thing, Jesse on cruise control was very funny. The pairing with Jim Ross in 92, for whatever reason, didn't click. They didn't have chemistry, and Jesse was weirdly on his best behaviour, talking about Edouard Carpentier and generally being into the matches. Ventura and JR were solid as a combo, but not exactly the "dream team" you might expect them to be. Come '93 and JR left for NY, and it's Jesse and Schiavone. Now this is the thing, someone else mentioned it: Tony just didn't get the antagonistic play-by-play vs. color man dynamic from WWF. This must have been obvious to Jesse after they did one show together. And this is where, in my view the GENIUS of the Jesse / Tony pairing works so well. Tony never gets it, he always sounds genuinely irritated and rattled, almost like it is a shoot/ legit situation. And the more he gets that reaction out of Tony, the more and MORE Jesse pushes him. I think it's laugh out loud funny at times. When Jesse is ripping on Erik Watts and Tony is scrambling to make the save or defend him. When Jesse is claiming that Schiavone hits his kids or cheats on his wife. Ventura might have kinda lost interest in what was going on in front of him, he was picking up a massive paycheck, but 93 wasn't the best year in ring for WCW, so the intriguing dynamic between the announcers makes a LOT of the crapper matches on those PPVs watchable. If you click the link in my sig, you'll see a lot of my mini-reviews from '93 mainly talk about the commentary rather than the matches. When Heenan came in 94, it must have felt like a kick in the teeth for Ventura who was sort of relegated -- kind of a reversal of 80s WWF when Ventura was number 1 colour man and Heenan the sub/ number 2. I read Ventura had beef with Hogan so left around that time anyway. I'll accept that Ventura and Vince is probably the BEST or most entertaining pairing, but I'd probably take Jesse with Schiavone over Jesse with Monsoon, and I like Jesse and Monsoon a lot. I think I'd take Ventura over Heenan on color too, if push came to shove. I enjoyed Ventura in 92-3 ALOT better than I've enjoyed Heenan in 94-5. Tony doesn't get Heenan either, but for whatever reason, it's never as amusing as it is with Jesse. I think because Jesse could flat out bully Tony, whereas Heenan is "the weasel", so Tony had a bit more fight back. Also, yeah Schiavone was continually passed over and shat on by WCW despite his years of loyalty. Must have been tough for him to work under Eric Bischoff.

Why do you say Jesse was not as good 92-4 as he was in the 80s? Having watched all of PPVs in the past two years, I think Ventura was ON FIRE during this period.

Do you think Harley Race ever recovered from the loss to Flair in 1983? I mean was that match the semi-official end to Harley being considered a main eventer? He was only 40 in 83. To put that in context, Flair was 40 in 1989, Savage was 40 in 1992, Hogan was 40 in 1993, and Triple H was 40 last year. Point is, he wasn't that old in wrestling terms.

My only criticism of that promo is actually Cena. Can someone tell me what happened to him just before the clip? Because whatever it is I'm meant to believe he's quite hurt, so bad that he can't get up, but not out cold FOR SIX MINUTES. What gives?

I thought it was good, but then watched the Joey Styles one and thought that was better. Obviously when people are saying "ever", they don't mean EVER though right? I mean for a start there are about 20 Flair promos that knock either of those out the park.

Guys, what are your thoughts on Tony Schiavone? I know he got a bad reputation as a ridiculous shill during the Nitro era, but for me, in the preceding decade he was one of the most solid play-by-play men in the business. His knowledge of moves was good, his PASSION and love for NWA and WCW was palpable. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of great moments and when they happened, and that gave things a sense of history. When he'd talk about Flair beating Race in '83, or Sting beating Flair '90, and so on. I don't know, he always gave me the impression that he was a real fan of "this great sport". And he made it feel more like a real sport as well. He was into stats, and the record books, like a commentator from a real sport. I think he's terribly underrated.

You're the second person who has told me to look out for that match now. My mid-south watching has been hijacked a bit by All Japan.

Yeah, I definitely think you can have degrees of heeldom. In 80s WWF, no one was really "more heel" than DiBiase or Heenan. They were at the extreme end.And Honky Tonk Man too. Rude was in the same sort of area in his WCW run. In a Royal Rumble or something, if you'd get the occassional random heel vs. heel clash, the crowd would suppoer WHOEVER was against the guys listed above. I think there's a good example of it in Rumble 92 when Haku takes a swipe at Flair. Flair in WWF was clearly "more heel" than Haku so Haku becomes de facto face.

Top-rope rule was formally eliminated in February 1998; Tony Schiavone mentioned it on commentary during a Nitro telecast. EDIT: It was mentioned on the 2/26/98 edition of Thunder, according to http://www.ddtdigest.com/updates/1998024t.htm Wow, that's a lot later than I thought.

Been watching Starrcade 95 tonight and I was *shocked* when Johnny B. Badd vs. Saito finished with an over-the-top-rope DQ finish! Is this the last time this finished was used in WCW? And did they ever announce that the top rope rule had been rescinded?

With heel vs. heel, I think the key argument against it is that the crowd has no one to root for, and therefore no emotional connection/ involvement with the match. The traditional logic of a wrestling narrative would be a simple story like wanting to see good prevail over evil, or just your favourite guy beating a guy you don't like. In real sports, most fans will have a team they support and that's their point of interest. If they happen to watch a match as a 'neutral', 9 times out of 10 they'll PICK someone to support just for the match. In wrestling, in threory, you are meant to dislike ALL heels. Heels are not only people you don't like, they are evil and have bad motives. Assuming the logic of all other sports applies to wrestling -- i.e. as a 'neutral' you're going to pick a guy to support just for the one match -- heel vs. heel puts the fan in the position of having to choose between two "evil" options. Who wants to root for someone evil? So what are the crowds options? 1. Stay neutral, in which case where is your emotional "in"? 2. Support one of the two heels, in which case you've either sold out your values or at least decided to settle for the lesser of two evils. A face winning pops the crowd. A heels winning kills it or outrages it. But here, theoretically it should do either. (NB. You might not know, but I'm a lifelong heel supporter, but that's by the by)

Was thinking about this randomly earlier. Face vs. Face has produced some of the best ever matches. But the dynamic of heel vs. heel makes no sense at all from the crowd's perspective. There's no one to cheer, just two guys you're meant to hate. So what does it come down to? Who do you hate more? Have there ever been any good heel vs. heel matches? It goes against all logic, so in theory we should be drawing a blank here. There are very few examples at all that I can think of. Ric Martel vs. Shawn Michaels in 92. What else? Bret Hart vs. Bad News Brown in 88. I remember Money Inc vs The Beverly Brothers in '93, Jake vs. Machoman on SNME. ummmm Vader vs. Stan Hansen at Wrestlewar '91. Oh and Harley Race vs. Haku for the crown from *I think* Royal Rumble 1989. After having a dig around, someone has posted a load of heel vs. heel matches on youtube, 34 of them seemingly, mostly random TV matches from WWF or WCW. Can this be done well, and if so how can it be made to work WITHOUT turning either guy?

What about Bossman during his face run?

El-P, my Rio Ferdinand comment was related to this: What I'm saying is that there are mixed race people who don't look better. Rio Ferdinand, for example, looks a bit like a horse. I'm mixed race myself, by the way. I just think that it's a misnomer to say that "mixed" = better. The best thing to say, surely, is that these things don't matter. Race is only really an issue for racist people and their victims I'd suggest.

El-P have you seen Rio Ferdinand? All I'm saying.