JerryvonKramer

Common wisdom says that Ted DiBiase was a broomstick worker. I've seen a lot of guys here and on DVDR dispute this and there seems to be a counter-orthodoxy that DiBiase wasn't that great. Can someone elucidate the reasons as to why? I mean everything I've ever seen the guy do as been great, so I don't understand where this counter-orthodoxy has come from.

I think this is a very interesting post in the context of this thread: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?show...p;#entry5466239

As I mentioned briefly before, I have a PhD in English lit, and, as such, I'm absolutely fascinated with analytical approaches, aesthetics, critical theory and so on. I have my own little forum (attached to my site) which is closed to the public, but on which there are about 30 core posters, non of whom are wrestling fans. I only mention this because a couple of weeks back I made a long post there in which I described the DVDR 80s project approach. It has led to a 5-page thread of very very very long posts discussing the merits and drawbacks of this approach - with me, the objectivist, advocating the approach and a number of people who abide by relativism attacking it. I don't think the discussion itself would be of particular interest to anyone here, but perhaps my opening post might be. I've tried to edit this down as much as I can. Please bear in mind the "audience" for this post are like 100% non-wrestling people. I mean most of them couldn't name 5 wrestlers, so to them the description would be pretty accurate -- take it as a compliment! Like I said, the ensuring debate is 1000s and 1000s of words long and runs over many pages, but I still basically hold that the 80s DVDR method is as close to perfection as I can think of. I'll just include some snippets from some of my own follow-up posts here where I'm specifically talking about the 80s DVDR rating system: I think that's the point the thread just explodes and we don't really talk about the DVDR 80s project system specifically again after that.

For all intents and purposes, DVDR and here seem like "IWC smart" HQ. Only, nobody who posts here seem to have any of the received (and irritating) opinions I'd typically expect from the Dean Malenko-loving* IWC smart crowd. This seems to be some sort of post-enlightenment haven. This interests me a little bit. So let me explain myself a bit here. I can't stand a guy like Scott Keith. To me, that guy just plain doesn't understand wrestling. He doesn't get it. There are a lot of people I've seen on the internet who talk like mini Scott Keiths. They rag on any match that isn't ****+ workrate classic. They think Dean Malenko is a top 5 of all time wrestler. They think any match with a fat man in it is an automatic DUD. I don't need to explain this to you, you know what I am talking about. I don't know what you call those guys. Are the terms 'smart' and 'smark' now really quite redundant? Then you get those guys who act like wrestling history began in 1996. Then you get the old ECW guys who think ECW revolutionised the industry, or something like that, although it seems like they are now a dying breed. How would I describe myself as a fan? I'm patently not a proper 'smart' fan. And I've never been a mark. I mean even as a 7 year old, I sort of knew it was a work. And I always supported heels -- and I mean DiBiase, Rude, Perfect, etc. proper heel heels when everyone else was a Hogan, Warrior, or Bret fan. But I just love wrestling. I love it. I get a buzz from seeing a great match, a great angle played out, a great promo. I love seeing it analysed. I love hearing it talked about. I love hearing old guys talk about it. I love reading about its history. And I love discovering and seeing new (old) stuff. So I'm ... just a slightly nerdy fan? Or probably more accurate: just a slightly nerdy fan of the period 1980-2004/5. That's probably how I'd describe myself. There's probably a shit ton of great stuff from 2005-present I'd like too, but ... y'know. ----------------------------- Anyway, I'm not so much interested about me, I'm interested in how you'd describe yourself as a fan right now in 2011. Have you changed as a fan? Did you used to be one of the guys I mention above? Are you still one? Don't be afraid to come right out and say that you're a proper 'smart' who is just into workrate or whatever. I'm just genuinely interested to know. * I like Malenko as much as the next man, by the way. This is just the cliche, you know.

Ok, just did some digging around: Greatest Rivalries 1 was: Austin/McMahon & Hennig/Bockwinkel and Rivalries 2 was: Snuka/Muraco, Midnight Express/Rock n Roll Express & Flair/Rhodes Do you know I can't recall either of these AT ALL. I thought I'd seen all of these but there's a slim possibility that I haven't because I have no recollection at all of Bischoff tackling the above issues. Actually, I thought the only Bischoff episode was the Monday Night Wars one. This is potentially awesome for because, for all it's failings, I love this show.

See I thought this, but it was one from ages and ages ago. In fact, they spent two whole shows on it. It was the line-up with: Bischoff, Foley, Hayes and Lawler. I might actually start re-watching some of these.

From the few Olympia matches I've seen on disc one of the Mid-South set, he's probably one of the most slept on workers of the 80s until now. This also interested me from his Wiki entry: Which led me to wonder: why didn't Vince or Crockett ever pick this guy up? I mean he was better than Tito Santana. Would have made a great IC or US champ circa 86/87. Strange he never got a run in the big 2. Also, is his All Japan stuff any good?

No love for Special Delivery Jones or Koko Ware? Also, are you really ranking Kamala above Scorpio? Will I understand this people thinking Kamala is good thing by the end of the Watts set?

Naturally, I didn't watch this, and have no intention to, but can someone sum it up for me in 10 words? EDIT: Wait, wait, the US-title was defended on a dark match?! Does the IC title still exist?

Where would people rank D-Lo Brown?

Another guy just popped into my head too: The Master from The Dungeon of Doom (King Curtis Iaukea). Was he actually a good wrestler in his day?

Has Iron Mike Sharpe ever had a good match? How about Ricky Gibson (singles)? How about Tony Halme a.k.a. Ludvig Borga?

This is probably not my favourite moment, but I am probably the only guy on earth who'd mention it: At Wrestlemania 5, during Jake vs. Andre when DiBiase sneaks down to the ring and tries to steal Damien. It's a tiny moment that links so many different things together - it's the sort of continuity you'd NEVER see today. Andre and DiBiase probably hadn't tagged since Summerslam 88, but their alliance was still strong enough that he'd come and try to make that save. Fast-forward a year and it's Jake vs. DiBiase at Wrestlemania 6. Just one little thing linking three Wrestlemanias. --------- Have to have a think about my all-time favourite WM moment. Probably Flair's post-match promo at Wrestlemania 8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlBcsC1v8wA "One time means NOTHING to my career!"

Isn't that DiBiase vs. Warrior title match from Japan from 1990? It was on the old 89/90 World Tour tape. Probably one of Warrior's best matches.

I've been a fan of this series from the beginning. At best it is insightful and illuminating, it's entertaining and provides a decent history lesson with the opportunity to see some footage from the vaults. Yes, there are some annoying panelists. Mike Graham, for example, always has my eyes rolling and I don't really like Pat Patterson on it either. Anyway, this one featured the debut of Bret Hart on this show and, my god, what an uptight son-of-bitch he is. He just seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about something. That is not the purpose of this thread however. Usually on Legends of Wrestling they do a decent job of running the gamut on the subject, but this one was very very disappointing because instead of looking through all of the great rivalries they focused exclusively on just five: Rock vs. Austin - because any time JR is on he'll spend 20 minutes at least talking about Austin. Freebirds vs. the Von Erichs - which they talk about pretty much every time Michael Hayes is on, basically every episode. Andre vs. Hogan - which they spent about 5 minutes on The British Bulldogs vs. The Fabulous Rougeous - which is genuinely something I didn't know about before Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michael - which they spent close to 40 minutes on That was IT. My question: what would you add to this list? I think Dusty vs. Flair is the biggest omission, but what else?

Been a long time but what was his match with The Genius like at Royal Rumble 90? Or his match with Mr. Perfect at Wrestlemania 6? I have fond memories of Beefcake vs. DiBiase from early in 1993, but mainly because IRS took his face off with the briefcase!

Seem like there is a problem with my site, can't upload any files and the WCW page is down. Looks like it'll take some time to fix. World War 3 '95 I thought this was a lot of fun and some really good matches here. Easily the best WCW PPV of 1995 thus far. Badd and DDP have great chemistry in the opener. Probably not quite as good as their Halloween Havoc match, but still pretty damn solid. And here's where Diamond Doll finally completes her long teased babyface turn. Feminism WCW 1995 is interesting: she puts HERSELF up as "the prize" here because DDP seems to care more about the TV title than her: women's rights baby! And a whole year before the Spice Girls too. Contrary to the opinions of Scott Keith and Matt Peddycord, I thought Big Bubba vs. Duggan was a perfectly servicable little brawl. Didn't feel long. Punches seemed brutal. Both men fired up. Probably the best Hacksaw match I've seen in WWF or WCW outside of the Vader match at Starrcade '94. I like this show, it's ticking along at a pleasant pace. Bull Nakano and Akira Hokuto vs Mayumi Ozaki And Cutie Suzuki was a nice surprise, random, a bit out of place, but nice and watchable. Kensuke Sasaki vs. Chris Benoit was cool, a nice change of pace to the WCW '95 norm and Sasaki was working some crisp stiff chops here. Goes over very very clean, which was a surprise as it seemed like Benoit was getting a push here having just been inducted into the Horsemen. Schiavone and Heenan even note that the other Horsemen don't come down to help him. Luger vs. Savage seems like a real throwaway, heavily mediated by Savage's arm injury. But soon after we get a WICKED Flair promo and you can feel the electricity in the air. Flair's just got this way of lighting up the place. Sadly, I think this show was the moment where his body finally turned from being just past his peak to being "middle-aged" Flair. I mean he looks past it here. Which is only slightly sad, because he could still go. The match against Sting isn't a classic but it's fun and the no-selling of the Flair chops is a great little story. The 60-man battle royal is just madness, it's total mayhem pure and simple. I'm not going to write it off like Scott Kieth or Matt thingy-mah-jig though, because 1) seeing all 60 guys coming down the isle and each of them getting announced gave me goosebumps, 2) Pez Whatley was a very unexpected appearance, and 3) The YHETTTAAYYY after being billed as one of the "3 giants of the 3 rings" (The Giant and Hogan being the other two) hilariously gets eliminated first. Also, and inexplicably, he's in some sort of ninja outfit here rather than in the mummy bandages. Ha ha ha. So all I could think watching this was ... Wrestlemania 4 ALL OVER AGAIN. Savage's big moment ruined by Hogan standing in his spotlight yet again. Hogan's tantrum is ridiculous here. However, I don't know what match Scott fucking Keith was watching here but unless my tape was dubbed by Turner, the crowd DID NOT TURN ON HOGAN here. They were clearly cheering him and supporting him, and lukewarm for Savage. There's no doubt about that on my tape. None at all. Here's what Keith says: "Hogan, sportsman of the year, throws a huge temper tantrum and won’t endorse Savage, and the arena just completely turns on him ala Royal Rumble 92. Hulk Hogan, hero to millions." That's simply not true. But in any case, I did not care for that finish. It would have made more sense for Giant to eliminate Hogan to set up a rematch for Starrcade and for Luger to challenge Savage for the belt at the same event. In a way, it's actually probably for the best that it didn't work out like that. All-in-all, a very fun show and better than any WWF PPV event that year.

Basically. He did just what he had to do to make people happy and stay over. Even after his cancer, Duggan was as energetic and enthousiastic in the ring as he was before. He didn't need to do more and stayed over for his entire with his stuff. He didn't need to work stiff like in Mid South, although on some rare occasions like against Vader or Meng in WCW he could work stiffer again. I can't believe I of all people is defending Duggan. I'm just watching the Hacksaw vs. Bubba Rogers match from World War 3 (1995). To be fair, taking his Vader match in view as well, I think this little mid-90s run in WCW was good. Although he's put on a shit ton of weight in the year between Starrcade 94 and this. I mean he's got a proper Dick Murdoch / Harley Race style belly here, whereas against Vader he was looking pretty stacked (for Duggan).

Interesting to see no one has mentioned Kamala here yet.

It's not the campiness but the racial and political implications. I'm not some sort of PC nut, but you've got to draw the line somewhere, and, for me, Kamala crosses that line.

This I've got to see. Which period in particular are you talking here? Roster's pretty stacked Summer of 1990, even on the face side. Hogan, Warrior, Dusty Rhodes, Texas Tornado. Jake Roberts was still a face. Boss Man was pretty over after the Akeem feud. Can't see a time when he would have been number 3 there. I actually thought Dusty was default #3 babyface feuding with the main event heels (Savage and DiBiase) who weren't in the main event. With von Erich and Bossman close behind them. No?

Will and Phil were saying that everything up until 1985 and he's one of the best of all time. That his star burned bright, but quickly. I think Doom are pretty good too. Incidentally, I googled this and it's very amusing to see so many guys put Ron Simmons ("for winning the WCW world title") and Tony Atlas right up there. As if the only history they know came from WWE 24/7. JYD also coming up a lot.

Thanks a lot dude. I think this is where only going through the PPVs has given me a kinda skewed perspective on things because there it's just Harmlet Heat vs. The Nasties for about 10 shows straight. Will check out this stuff. Will help me fill in some of the gaps.

I thought most of Bunkhouse Buck's best stuff was from the feud with Dustin Rhodes the year before. What did he do in 1995? I tell you who is MASSIVELY underrated from this time period in general: Paul Orndorff. Even right up to the injury, he had real intensity and still had pretty good heat.

I think the criteria we're using is similar - I'm not one of these IWC workrate junkies. I'm just struggling to imagine HOW Kamala could have a good match. What I'm trying to say is that his basic style of working is something that takes me "out" of the match. Almost everything is designed to get over the fact that he's a wild savage. If when someone knocks you out of the ring, the thing you are getting over is not the PAIN that you are in but what a goon you are, there's something going wrong there. I'm aware that my predisposition of HATING the gimmick, colours my view in this somewhat, but it seems to me that Kamala's style is designed only to get over that gimmick and not the match itself. As it happens, that's my exact problem with George Steele too. Even with the most gimmicky of gimmicks - your Doinks and Repo Men - they'd pick and choose when to get over the gimmick and when to work the match. Seems to me both Steele and Kamala didn't do that.