JerryvonKramer

Back when we did the WTBBP countdown show, I shared it with a place I post on sometimes that has a casual wrestling section (that I don't really go into). Some snippets: Thanks Chad, it took you less than 15 minutes to lose the casual audience!

Also when he crops up in St. Louis footage in that time frame. Dylan, a very handy resource for this is the old Best of Flair comp. Someone has put it onto youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzttD23OW3w-Aj2oPzpVLweSrKi8lACXG Discs 1-5 give you a pretty good idea of what Ric was about 78-80. A good 10 hours of footage. Listings (although I think this is a different comp, some of the same stuff on there). Some of the clips from the garbage tapes are 15+ mins. It's not like it is hard to tell that it is very good.

Mostly the garbage tapes. I don't think anyone can watch that stuff and come out of it thinking that Flair or Steamboat weren't two of the top workers in the world. Not like #1 and #2, but definitely in the mix.

I said this: So the terms of the poll weren't exactly fair were they. It should have been "Flair's Chop vs Lawler's Right Hook". Or what I actually suggested: Flair's chop vs. Misawa's elbow. Which is a much closer comparison. I mean Flair uses a shit ton of other spots: rabbit punches, open handed slap, punch to the gut, etc. etc., we aren't factoring those because we're not talking about an entire arsenal of offense, just one spot.

This is one thing I keep forgetting to mention. You keep shitting on Taker for all the crap but he did make your Top 105 or whatever because BIGLAV didn't factor in negatives. Well I'm the same, the JIMBOB system doesn't really factor in negatives either. I focused on positives - their best work, peaks, positive attributes, lists of great matches, etc. - and didn't worry so much about anyone's negatives or bad periods. If I did, assholes like Hunter and Angle would have fucked right off. I'm not saying Taker would have fucked off my list if I did, in fact I'm almost certain he'd have been on my list anyway, mainly because you and I just disagree markedly on how much bad stuff there is and how bad it really was (not to mention how good the good stuff is). But I'm just saying that when you say things like "he had some good stuff but simply mountains of crap, how can you rank him?" I'm saying I didn't think in that framework at all when making my list. I focused on the good stuff. This is one of those things I might have to change if I had my time again. BIGLAV needed a seventh category ("Consistency"). One of the reasons I am against factoring "negatives" is because they are so often just bollocks -- I think of Flair working crappy trash matches with Mick Foley (although some people like that one), feuds with Carlito over the IC title, and tags with Batista, shit that is in NO WAY revelant to his case at all. People who bring that stuff up when it comes to Ric's GWE case are basically assholes in my view and they can fuck off with that shit. I wanted to be totally consistant with that so I didn't hold anyone's post-peak against them beyond where I cut off the year. Fewer years as one of the best in the world = fewer points. In Flair's case, it really didn't matter cos he was demonstrably one of the 30 best wrestlers in the world 78-94, which got him a decent score in that category anyway. Of course, he would have aced "consistency" 10/10 if I'd added that, because, well he was consistently outstanding every night for a decade on a level seldom witnessed in pro wrestling. Let's think about the years I didn't give Ric there, 1995 when he had memorable matches with Arn and Savage and carried two non-wrestlers (Kevin Greene and Steve McMichael) to an enjoyable match. He also had a good match with Sting and Luger that year. In 96 there's more Savage stuff. Flair's 95-6 adds basically nothing to his case. I don't think he got a single BIGLAV point for any of it. It's irrelevent to him. He was still GOOD, still having watchable and enjoyable matches, still having meaningful feuds, etc., but none of that stuff really matters to his case. Let's imagine Undertaker had a year like Flair's 1995 or 1996, it would be trumpeted as some massive achievement, and the stuff would be pointed to as evidence for him. Having some okay years like that don't add much to a GWE case. The guys who benefitted most from me not factoring in "negatives" turned out not to be Flair at all, Flair is the GOAT so he doesn't need help. It was these guys: Rick Steiner Scott Steiner Sting Inoki Muta Steve Austin Shawn Michaels John Cena To me these guys made my ballot because I didn't hold all the crap they did DURING their supposed peaks (let alone post-peaks) against them. The difference between most of those guys and The Undertaker is that those guys mostly could go and they were mechanically sound. It makes a difference, I suppose, that I don't see the Undertaker's much raved about matches as ***** affairs. I think they are mostly bad, mostly near-fall wankfests that represent stuff I don't like about modern WWE. Cena got so high on my list partly because he was somehow able to have great matches that didn't fall prey to those tropes (although he has many more that do, and I don't like them).

"Consistently great" seems to be pushing it considering how much he dogged it on a regular basis. I'm pro-Andre, anti-Taker though.

Will probably hasn't watched a lot of late 70s or early 80s Andre in WWF, so I totally get how he can have that opinion.

Speaking of Varsity Club, wanna know something amazing. The Road Warriors dropped only a couple of pinfalls in something ridiculous like a 7 or 8 year period. Mike Rotunda was involved both times.

Would Doc make it for you without the stuff from 94-5?

It's not just a case of not fitting. Doc was actively shit in WCW for stretches at a time. Maybe without Watts and Ted there to hold his hand some of his limitations were exposed a bit more. Booking didn't help. I don't think the 92 run is that great either. Chinlock city. Actually, I'd take both the Doc and Ted team and the Williams and Ace team over Doc and Gordy any day of the the week. See the MVC as low points in both of their careers, ironically given how cool that team sounds and was always hyped to be.

Down to 66 left with Dr Death gone btw. Seems a fair placement for him. Weird career insomuch as he's good (Mid-South), then shit (WCW), then amazing (AJPW).

I wonder if Cesaro would rank in the mythical 2026 poll. Not saying he wouldn't, just wondering.

More great discussion here. I especially liked the stuff on Eadie, thought it had some pretty interesting takes. I saw the placement of Christian largely as a troll. On Patterson, his banner year on tape is 79 imo, if you haven't you should both check that entire first IC title run out.I haven't seen than 68 match, sounds cool. There is some San Fran out there but it's badly labelled and hard to watch because no sound. I did my own commentary on one match. I liked Jimmy's enthusiasm about Sarge and I largely feel the same way. Was entertained by the butchering of Spanish.

I think those are the same match. Ted mistimed the Japan match and they called time on him. Ted always claims he didn't get any offense, but his heat section takes a good bit of the match. Well I'll be, so they are!!! Looks like taping was 10/30/90 aired 11/23/90 in the SNME slot but as Main Event IV? What's the deal with this? Turns out that the only two times Ted and Warrior had a singles match on tape are this and Tokyo Wrestling Summit.

A lot of hipsters.

Okay, Main Event is 10/30/90 and SNME is 11/23/90. Neither of those matches are more than about ***1/2, but they aren't bad in my view. Go about ten mins. Remember also that Warrior was a total stiff.

The Tokyo match is only 6 minutes long, don't forget, and the Japanese fans laughed at Warrior. Ted has said it was the most embarrassed he's been in his whole career. I cannot seem to find a date for the SNME match, and I'm wondering if it is the same as the Main Event IV match and just mislabeled in places.

Ted did get good matches out of Warrior, it's just that the Tokyo one isn't very good. The one from SNME in 1990 is better. One from Main Event IV isn't bad either. All better than the Japan match from the World Tour tape.

I have 67 left and in good shape to take you and Grimmas to the cleaners.

Kurt Angle was my favourite wrestler during his "It's True" run up to and including 2001. Looking back some of the work doesn't hold up, but when he was the milk-drinking heel rather than Mr. Intensity, some of the work is still mechanically leagues above a lot of other guys. The shame with Angle is the wasted potential, here's an Olympic Gold medalist, compared widely to Jack Brisco and ... well, he never got close to being Jack Brisco. That's what it is with him, not that he was worse than actually crap wrestlers.

One fix to BIGLAV I should have made is a special negative category where I get to stick minus points on people for various things. Someone like Taker would end up on a negative overall score.

I'm gonna stop my Taker bashing now. I promise.

Angle is better than HHH because he has more base skills and tools, he just doesn't know how to use them. But he can do more. Angle is better than Taker because Taker is a stiff.

Herein lies the issue. There's some crap and then there's the amount of crap he's had. I forget.. did you leave Mil Mascaras on your list or not? No, I chucked him due to extreme prejudice. Against both crap wrestlers and Mexicans.