JerryvonKramer

DiBiase vs. Duggan (Loser Leaves Town, Tuxedo, No DQ, Coal Miner's Glove on a Pole, Cage Match) (March 30, 1985) has to be one of them. I'd also put Steamboat vs. Rude Ironman match from Beach Blast '92, never known why that one doesn't get more hype, it's amazing.

I think Bret came across better on that show than the previous one. Patterson, however, for whatever reason, didn't come across well on that Canadian Effect ep. At least not for me. I can also no longer get a read on JR. Can't tell if he's grumpy, taking something in good spirits or not. Rewatched some of the older ones recently and it's particularly difficult on the Heatseekers one.

I should have known there'd be a tongue-in-cheek backlash of this sort.

Wow, thanks that's fascinating. So just a few questions from that: 1. When you say "his TV show was no longer just Houston footage", do you mean he had a TV show that would show anything that went down at the Sportatorium? (or anywhere else in Houston) And if so, how often was this show on TV? 2. When you say that Boesch "booked from X office", do you mean he booked Houston-based shows using that promotion's roster of talent? Presumably he'd be getting a cut of the gate each time, right? Just seems a really strange set up to me. 3. With Boesch switching from promotion to promotion for his booking office, does this mean he was sort of a "promoter for hire"? Like if a company wanted to run shows in Houston, they had to do it through him? What would have happened if they just booked a venue without him?

I'm happy to remove that.

This seems to have been pretty badly no-sold. So let me give a deadline: May 3rd

Can anyone tell me what the relationship between Bill Watts's Mid-South promotion and Paul Boesch's Houston promotion was? My impression watching the MS set is that Watts had just bought it and was simply using Boesch as an on-air talent whenever they went to the Sam Houston Coliseum, but that doesn't seem right.

I'm interested to know what everyone's picks will be for this. All you do is rank your Top 3 in each of the following categories by copy-pasting the below and adding your picks, then PM them to me. I'll collate and announce the results in a few weeks. Top ranked in each category will form the forum's theoretical "dream team" for TV. For fun, I've also included a "worst" option in each category, the most "worsts" will form a "Nightmare" team. Number 1 pick gets 5 points, number 2 will get 3 points and number 3 gets 1 point. "Worst" gets -1. In a lot of the categories, I can see there being at least 2 obvious front runners, so I'm especially interested in what people's number 3 picks will be. I haven't included road agents because it seems to me that that is something we can't possibly know for sure about. You can use this thread to discuss your choices. Not running this anywhere else, PWO only. Company owner 1. 2. 3. Worst: Head Booker 1. 2. 3. Worst: Play-by-play 1. 2. 3. Worst: Colour 1. 2. 3. Worst: Interviewer / Studio anchor 1. 2. 3. Worst: Ring Announcer 1. 2. 3. Worst: Ref 1. 2. 3. Worst: On-air Authority figure 1. 2. 3. Worst:

That's the one where they almost kill Izuka, yeah. It's just brutal and violent. Scott and Rick just don't hold back on Iizuka at all and then Fujinami starts bringing some violence of his own, including a spike piledriver. It's epic - the fact that it isn't even the best match on the card is testament to the quality of WCW in 1992. I've had this argument before: everyone says 1989 is THE best year for wrestling and I accept that, but if you limit it just to the main two American companies, I think there's a very strong case for 1992. In my view, WCW never gets as good as the first 6-8 months again and WWF had a great year too with Flair in town. It's a year where you have the next generation coming through while most of the previous generation are still around and not yet over the hill.

As long as the Fujinami and Iizuka one from Wrestlewar is there I'm happy.

Pretty much every Steiners PPV match from WCW that year was good, are they all going on Loss?

Awesome, a new Lars episode. Can't wait to listen.

From their Legends with Wrestling appearances alone I'd cite both Bret Hart and Pat Patterson. And Lawler. A lot of the wrestlers put themselves over on that show, but I'd say those did it more than most. Lawler in the space of one show took credit for inventing the Rock 'n' Roll Express, The Fabulous Ones, and music videos in wrestling with Michael Hayes sitting dumbfounded right next to him. Bret Hart seems to have an incredibly high opinion of himself and seems to have absolutely no level of self-awareness or humour to go with it. At least Foley, Cornette, Heyman etc. are aware of their self-shilling and can even make a joke out of it. Bret is just 100%, chip-on-the-shoulder, "I was the best, and that's it". I've come to dislike Bret over the two hours I spent with him on those two shows - he was better in the Canadian one than the previous one. Patterson is less of a self-shill, but he was GAGGING for Bret to pick him as the best Canadian wrestler and hated the fact that he chose Archie Gouldie, in fact he was downright furious and proceeded to try to bury him and his entire career. I cringed as he tried to big himself up by telling a story that went nowhere about working with Rocky Johnson. Patterson also consistently puts over WWF/E stuff on that show and generally comes across as a bit of a prick. When I first started watching LoW, I used to hate Hayes, but now-a-days he's the only one I actually like on there. I get sick of JR harking back to the Attitude era as the be all and end all. It's more than a bit irritating. But anyway, there are some names for you no one has mentioned yet.

I'm on less than 10% regnition for most of those Shire cards. I had to google Magnificent Zulu because of the awesome name. Got this from Obsessed with Wrestling. Zulu was booked for Inoki in Japan based on his tremendous physique alone. His work was so bad in his first match in Japan that the entire dressing room cleared out, jumped into the ring and preceded to beat the crap out of him... and it was a shoot.

Hi guys, I'm on a business trip in NYC. I actually just asked a New York cop in Times Square if he knew where WWF New York was. I looked it up just now and saw that it shut in 2003, damn! Anyway, I've always been interested in the relationship between the WWF's success and its New York location. I'm convinced that if Vince had been based in Texas, or the Carolinas, or in Oklaholma, he wouldn't have been able to end the territory system in the way he did. Of course, he had talent as promotor, but how much of the initial leverage of the WWF's strength as "the top territory" even back in the 70s come from the fact that New York and the Tri-State area is the most densely populated area in the United States? Then I started wondering ... what about California? That's the only other place in the US you'll find that number of people. How come there's never been a big promotion there? Are there cultural regions for this? On the Mid-South set, Bill Watts calls Adrian Street a "sissy" and a "California type". Can someone explain this to me? Don't they have wrestling fans in Cali?

Have to agree with Loss here, the logic of saying that because neither Flair not Arn were Billy Robinson or Verne Gagne THEREFORE to expect them to work a "wrestling" match is "laughable" doesn't work at all. At the end of the day, this wasn't two jobbers here, or two out and out brawlers like Jim Duggan and Bad News Brown, it was two of the most respected workers in American wrestling history, so I think it's too much to say the expectation of a wrestling match was laughable. Pushed the argument too far there. I'd also like to throw this out again: whatever its shortcomings, is that match from Fall Brawl '95 the best of Arn's singles career?

I agree with Loss, that match is about Arn and his own sense of self-worth and about Flair needing to wake up to see that you can't take people for granted. As such, I think it's one of the more interesting and subtle angles to have been attempted, especially in that era. The match is not a classic (despite arguably being Arn's best singles match), but it's believably worked taken in either the context of the storyline running up to it, or if taken retrospectively (i.e. after the swerve) as a work. jdw, I guess you're far more down on 90s Flair than I am. I was just pulling out some examples post-92 where I thought he still had something to offer. The Vader retirement angle, Steamboat in '94 and the Arn angle were at least memorable. I don't think he embarrassed himself in any of those and if I were forced to keep going with my Dylan analogy, I'd say they were like his "Oh Mercy". I don't think anyone is going to base their "Dylan is GOAT" argument on "Oh Mercy", but it showed he still had something in the locker in 1989. Notice, I'm not talking about Time Out of Mind Here or "Love and Theft", because I don't think Flair has the equivalent of those late in his career - that's where the analogy falls down. The point was that if Dylan had died in 1980, you could still easily make a GOAT argument for him - Oh Mercy, Time out of Mind etc. are just BONUS on top of that. The fact that Dylan also recorded Knocked Out Loaded and, in 1990, a song called "Wiggle Wiggle" is not relevant to the GOAT argument, and we're not going to count those not so good albums against him. For Flair, he could have died in 1990 and his GOAT material is already there; you can extend it to include WWF in 1991-2 or -- as I was arguing for -- to 1995, but most of that stuff is BONUS. It's "Oh Mercy". The good things he did there add to his legend, the not so good things do not detract from his GOAT case. Would you agree with that? Or would you say that the fact that, for example, the Rude and Windham matches in 93 weren't so hot should be "minus marks" against him?

I don't think this is really what he is getting at. Your classic WWF "good hand" was someone like - and god we've talked about him of late - DiBiase. Someone who could have a good ten minute TV match with anyone and make it work. Other completely random examples include: Rick Martel, Chris Jericho, and Mr. Olympia from the Watts set. I think the OP is getting at something quite different. I can't actually think of any examples because I'm not sure any exist.

When did Steamboat, Hennig or Savage "adapt to their opponent's style"? Not saying they didn't, just interested to know what that means. Also Steamboat obviously never worked as a heel. Ever.

Loss - his promos were still electric though, right? Doesn't that do anything to moderate / mediate that view?

Why this 1992 cut off point? Seems a bit arbitrary to me. Late 1995 seems more logical. I mean the Savage wrestlemania match was after his 43rd birthday. If I had to point to one show where Flair first REALLY looks like he's past his peak it's probably World War III '95. His body really looks like it's on the turn in that match against Sting, he looks like someone past their prime. I'd argue that in 1994 he was still in pretty good shape. But I'm sensing a "common wisdom" here for dating it to 1992 and him being 43. Why? What's the reason?

For me it's "obvious" because you just have to list the people he's worked with from Race to Shawn Michaels and there's your GOAT. Pretty much every great name of the last 30 years, "anyone who is anyone", worked a match with Flair at some point, and most of them are "good", many many of them are "great". I think those who argue against that take him much too much for granted and overrate the competition. He's the glue that connects three generations of wrestling. He's the man. How can you draw the line at 1992? Steamboat in '94? Arn in '95 (feud as well as the match, PLUS the awesome double cross vs. Sting a few months later)? His stuff in '93 vs. Vader is great too, especially the "retirement" match/angle, that had me in real genuine tears. Loser leaves town vs. Hennig is not bad either. Some of his promos in late WCW are also amazing. Some of his Evolution stuff wasn't bad (I enjoyed the Carlito stuff) and was appaled by the HHH sledgehammer stuff. Taboo Tuesday was good. Shawn match was good. On the holistic level, he's off the charts for charisma and for mic work, again, off the charts. Best NWA champ, leader of the best stable, best US matches of the 80s, star of the best Rumble, a participant in perhaps 4 or 5 of the all-time greatest feuds and the star of at least a dozen other truly great ones (e.g. Savage in 92, not a GOAT feud, but it was memorable and awesome), you could go on and on and on and on and I haven't mentioned Steamboat yet. Put me in the camp that says it's a "lock on" for Flair as #1. To the point where I'm not even sure I see a tremendous amount of value in discussing it. I think he'd have a strong claim to be number 1 if he had retired in 1993, the rest is just "bonus". And his "bonus" career still probably better than the best a lot of guys have to offer. We like the music analogies, I think he's the "Bob Dylan of Wrestling".

I'm far too tired to give my full response right now, but in a way I wish I had a better example than Benoit - he's an unfortunate example - but to me he captures the sort of "work-rate first" mentality I am criticizing here. Very briefly SSL - the tough thing in this argument is that most of the posters on this board and the makers of the DVDR sets are - to my mind - among the most enlightened fans out there. So, of course, they are going to rate Watts/SL vs. MX highly. But then there are more than a few great DiBiase matches on that set too (I'm only on disc 2, but as I understand it, he had a lot in the top 20). Goodhelmet has made that point 3 or 4 times now already. This really backs up what I'm saying. However, I don't make the text/context distinction you do - the promo, the storyline, the angle, the blow-off match, the post-match shenanigans and aftermath - they are ALL part of "the text" in the way that I see things. I only see the match as one aspect of "wrestling", "wrestling" being the whole product. This is part of the problem though - no one who writes on wrestling on the internet is going to rate DiBiase vs. Virgil as a ***** match. No one. In fact, why don't I look it up. What did Scott Keith give that match? **1/2 What does that even mean? Let me see if I can find what Meltzer gave it. ** To my mind that match right there is the full stop to one of the great stories the WWF did in that era. Told and paced incredibly well. Teased for years. A poor man pushed to breaking point by his rich dickish employer. And that match has its part to play in that angle and it played it very well. Just like the Watts/SL vs. MX match. But the IWC doesn't give star ratings for things like that - to my mind, note "the essence of wrestling" - it just takes the match and says "oh that was 2 stars". So a "Best of 1991" according to the two ratings above, wouldn't have DiBiase vs. Virgil on it. It is just a "nothing" match. I believe this approach fundamentally misunderstands what wrestling is all about. But I've just said that most members of this board and the compilers of the DVDR sets understand this, yes? They are "enlightened" as I've said and believe. Where the disconnect comes in is when we get to the GOAT discussion and all the names there are basically "workrate" names. That's not the same "aesthetic" (as you called it) that went into compiling and rating the Watts set. That's more the aesthetic of the likes of Kieth and Meltzer. Ok, that wasn't very brief. I got carried away (again). ------------------------- Aside: incidentally, in a way, I think the talk about the criteria and how we get there is more interesting that the discussion itself because ... isn't the answer just "Ric Flair"? I mean whichever way we get there, looking at it holistically or just at matches, the answer is Flair right? It's who occupies 2-50 that is more interesting. I see two very different lists being made if you go by the sort of criteria I've been trying to put forward vs. the pure matches one.

So Ross was actually not with the company in 1994? Honestly never knew that. I thought he was doing WWF radio or B-shows or something.