-
Posts
11555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by JerryvonKramer
-
This seems strangely a bit received opinion from you Matt. I have to say I don't recognise much of this from a lot of the Mil matches I've seen. Like, he will give, and even take a beating sometimes, but you know the match is going to end in a double count out and that he's absolutely not going to get pinned. And that at some point in the match, he'll get his shit in. But the Brody comparison feels off. Mil not taking pins is also made a bigger deal of because it is in the wrestling lore. Like Abby never took pins, Sheik didn't, I mean honestly how many times were Terry Funk or Stan Hansen pinned in All Japan? Dory never took pinfalls either. In the context of AJ at the time, not so unusual. I'm just saying that there's a bit mythmaking and confirmation bias from that mythmaking in here too. I've seen Mascaras sell an uppercut like it killed him. I'm not saying it's not true that he worked strong, but that the line is probably a bit overstated, especially in comparison with his contemporaries.
-
Well I guess what I was saying in a round about way is that none of those four guys are "chaff" by the standards and norms of the time (note, Backlund was of course later, and a bit of a throwback even in 1978). Like it's a standard critique of Mascaras that he worked too strong and didn't sell enough, but is that really a fair criticism considering the above? Backlund and Inoki also worked strong and didn't sell a lot. Dory a wee bit more giving, but only a bit.
-
I wonder if that is weirdly held against Shawn in a way that, for example, Steamboat being booed in 1989 because Flair was 20 million times cooler than the guy who brought his wife and kid to the ring. The former is taken as a knock on Shawn, the latter as a knock on George Scott and evidence for him being out of touch, or maybe Bonnie gets some of the blame, etc. This didn't factor into my own final rating for HBK, but for some reason that babyface run seems to loom large.
-
One thing that has just occurred to me is that if you take Mil, Inoki, Backlund and Dory, all four guys had a habit of working from on top. We are used to seeing a lot of great workers working from underneath, but each of these guys came from a different type of ethos whereby legit credentials and demonstration of wrestling ability -- that is strategy and the game of human chess -- was more important than "making your opponent look good". With all of these guys, instead of selling, as we think of it, you get struggle. I've watched an awful lot of these guys over the past two or three years. I've learned to appreciate the things Backlund can do well and what he brings to the table. I also learned to love Dory, who believe it or not I legit believed was the most boring wrestler in the world circa 2012, there are probably posts with me saying so here, and audio on old shows of me burying Dory, I was not seeing his strengths and judging him unfairly. And Backlund and Dory are actually really pretty similar workers I've come to realise. Mascaras is a similar story in some ways. I haven't watched sustained Mil, but he has cropped up again and again in different contexts and has been pretty effective in some matches. Inoki still really bored me, but "getting" Backlund and Dory in some ways has helped me understand him a bit better too. In all four cases, they were trying to get over the idea of a legitimate sporting contest and so "selling" as in bumping around and pin balling just doesn't seem all that realistic. People have actually asked me a few times "Parv, you like Dory and watch 70s stuff, how come you don't like shoot style? It's not a million miles away." And my answer is really that there are enough pro-style elements even in the more technical, chess-type bouts, to keep me engaged. ---- Anyway, I guess the point of this post is that in some ways all four of these guys I'm talking about here are judged unfairly by standards set by the 1980s big bumping style pioneered by Race and Flair. Guys just didn't work like that in the early 70s. It was much more about the idea of out manoeuvring the opponent, working in and out of holds, etc. I mean, honestly, in terms of matwork all four of these guys blow someone like Bret Hart or even a Kawada or Misawa out of the water. Like not even same ballpark. However, they don't tend to be judged like that, but instead for essentially not working in a more modern and exciting way. I say this as someone who rated the classic Dory vs. Inoki 69 match *** and who for stretches was bored to tears by it, and as someone as guilty as ANYONE for judging these guys by later norms. But there aren't many people around to make this sort of argument, so I am just putting it out there. Everyone who has read or listened to my stuff knows that my favourite wrestling is stuff from the 80s and early 90s whether NWA, territories, WWF or Japan, my bread and butter is that scene and those environments. The 1970s was a different time in wrestling. Different style of work, different priorities to get over. If Vince's vision of pro wrestling was the Wrestlemania moment or if Bill Watts's was a standup American male jock overcoming an evil doer / foreigner / sissy boy, then Sam Muchnick's was the idea of wrestling as a legit sporting contest played out as much in the mind as in the ring, and it seems to me Baba and Inoki both had a similar philosophy at that time. This context is important because it strongly mediates how workers from that time should be judged. I guess grouping Mascaras with them in this way is also making a statement of a sort: he should really be thought of with this sort of company and in this era, not the guy pulling in his stomach at MSG in 1982 or whatever.
-
Jimmy, what do you think about Shawn's basic inability to get over as a babyface in 1996? Especially that match where the crowd are openly booing him and cheering Sid? And this was at a time when fans didn't typically do that.
-
I am of the view -- and I think it is probably controversial -- that if we had a more complete account of Bock's early career it would likely hurt his case because people would fall asleep watching it. People are ridiculously down on early 80s Jumbo, people do not have the patience for longer NWA-style bouts these days and complain that they are dry and boring. And I think Bock worked more like that in the 70s. His tag stuff with Stevens in the 70s actually adds very little to his case, and I watched two discs worth.
-
In some ways, I think Bock's case has the fewest weaknesses of any of the major #1 contenders. Let's say he was 35 rather than 45 when he did all the stuff Matt listed, would we really care as much about the footage we don't have? I do think he has more than enough on tape. More than any other guy I've ever seen, he was able to change his approach to a match to fit the context. So when he went to Japan and had long matches for Baba, he'd chain wrestle and work the mat (some people find that boring, but he could do it with the best of them). When he went to Memphis he was happy to brawl and work some schtick. When he has to work as a chickenshit against Hogan or Crusher or any other of Verne's monster babyfaces, he could do that. But when he had to work as a more dominant "master wrestler" type, or a sprint brawl, or a gimmick match of any sort, he could do that too. Complete all-rounder and the closest thing to a wrestling "maestro" that there has been, in my view.
-
If it was SD Jones taking it, you must remember that all 80s black men had heads harder than concrete. If it was Jones giving it, I need to see that just to witness Jones actually doing a move that isn't a forearm smash!
-
I kinda want to see this piledriver cos it sounds awesome. Who was the JTTS?
-
If he stopped the bomb throwing with no selling, then yes. I can't get over the piledriver on the floor as a normal spot in a match. That spot basically never hit. It is Harley taking a backdrop 99% of the time. I believe I've watched every match of Harley's on tape up to 1983. He did it in the WWF against a JTTS. Seems like a good reason to disqualify him from your list.
-
Do you actually think any of those people are great, or that they are clearly considered great? I personally don't think Inoki or Mil Mascaras are great wrestlers. They are basically two guys who were pushed as great, and put in a position so that all of their best moments seem like huge events. If you were to put the aforementioned Big Boss Man in a position where all of his matches were treated as the most important matches on the show, all of his good matches would seem great too. I honestly think Inoki, Mil, Hogan, etc. are all capable of having the occasional great match, but their great matches get seen as legendary because of their place on the card and in the heart of fans. There's an output argument as well as in input argument. There are specific matches to consider, the case is made of more than just what I personally make of any one wrestler. And Mil, Inoki and Hogan have all been in really good matches that one might give ****3/4 or ***** to, several of them, whereas I'm not sure that is true of Bossman. You can change the names and specifics here, they aren't really important. You can replace them with The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and John Cena and Bossman with whoever you want. There is the worker and then there is the body of work and the career. And the body of work to some extent can't be denied. I accept arguments that want to poke holes in the body of work or argue that great matches aren't great. I am less keen on the arguments that only consider the input side because that seems to get away from tangible measurables. And, like I've said before, too crap shoot-y.
-
I suspect I won't venture out of the 80s and early 90s again for maybe a year if not more once GWE is over. Outside of shows, I am minded to watch random episodes of JCP, WWF Challenge, and things like that, probably without write ups. And honestly, I can't wait.
-
You guys are doing a pretty good job of making me consider throwing out Inoki, Shawn, Rey, Mil, Dandy and other such guys I don't care for and replacing them with Garvin, Red Pants Kobayashi, Bruno and other such guys whose skills I value more. Will think it over.
-
Mine are Jumbo and Toyota Probably am going to rank Jumbo somewhere, because I do like his late 80s stuff a fair amount, he will be way low though as I find his stuff before 88 or so pretty boring Just out of interest while you are around Phil, don't you like his 70s matches vs. Robinson, Terry Funk, Funks in tags, etc? I think he has so much more spunk and fire during that run than he does during early 80s.
-
If he stopped the bomb throwing with no selling, then yes. I can't get over the piledriver on the floor as a normal spot in a match. That spot basically never hit. It is Harley taking a backdrop 99% of the time. I believe I've watched every match of Harley's on tape up to 1983.
-
I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"? This is a serious question at the heart of this. I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring. Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about". It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list". I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it. I think there is a big difference between listing categories and saying Inoki is better in this one, Bossman in this one, and someone saying Bossman was great at this stuff that I value more importantly. That is not picking favourites, that is just people using different criteria. "Stuff that I value" feels pretty favourite-y to me.
-
Verne Gagne probably, who I conveniently classed as a 1950s worker and didn't give ratings to.
-
I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"? This is a serious question at the heart of this. I don't think Inoki was great. He was super charismatic and a good draw and well protected by booking. When in the right setting could pull off a really good match. I don't see how he is great in the ring. Okay, but being put in those positions over a 20+ year period he had a lot of very good and some even great matches. And you say "yeah, but great matches isn't a metric I care about". It's excatly the thing that says "I prefer watching Big Bossman and so I think Big Bossman is better than Inoki" that I see as making the list much more of a crap shoot and "favourites list". I understand this is not a popular view. But it is exactly my issue with the process as it transpired. Like I've kept saying, it is what it is. But the more things go towards that the more crapshoot-y things become to me. Just telling it like I see it.
-
I really really do hate watching Inoki, like he fucking sucks, but can anyone really look in the mirror and say he wasn't "great"? This is a serious question at the heart of this.
-
That makes sense and I appreciate that you're sticking to your formula. Rey is definitely a great example of that as when looking at his specific qualities I find a whole lot more to like than the final output. Yes, but I'm not claiming "objectivity" because I still found ways to low ball him. I don't think his great matches are as great as other people do. I hate his offense. etc. etc. The personal dislike absolutely factors into things, but even beyond that Rey can post some impressive things that are pretty undeniable even to a hater. Which is kind of the definition of "greatness" in my view. That even a hater has to give you your due. But since not everyone has been thinking like that, I don't see why Dylan should necessarily have to do the same with Jumbo, especially if he sees the entire process as being entirely subjective.
-
1. Stan Hansen 2. Ric Flair 3. Mitsuharu Misawa 4. Daniel Bryan 5. Genechiro Tenryu 6. Toshiaki Kawada 7. Terry Funk 8. Jushin Liger 9. Jumbo Tsuruta 10. Rey Mysterio Ted - 42
-
Rey is probably my benchmark example. He's a guy I'm really very low on, VERY. And I would go as far as to say that he stands for things I actively dislike in wrestling. But his case is there, I can't ignore it, I have to give him his due. It's grudging, but there he is somewhere in my top 30 or wherever. That's how I've always seen the GWE.
-
I am still not really entirely convinced to be honest, having lived it in real time. Phrases like "doesn't personally connect with me", and so on are pretty convenient get out clauses that seem -- in my view -- to discourage the serious analytical rigour that Childs referenced. Of course, it is an entirely unreasonable thing to demand any sort of rigour at all from people just doing something for fun about something they love. But I will always kind of view this thing as a missed opportunity to do something more substantial as opposed to what it was, which is a kind of a fun litmus test of where the fandom is at right now. Which is cool, in itself, but just less the sort of thing that I'd get exicted about. And I say that while secretly being totally pumped and excited to see the results, etc.
-
I did think your "watchability" point is interesting, not dodging that question, just mulling it over.
-
JvK's Six-Factor Model for GWE rankings [BIGLAV]
JerryvonKramer replied to JerryvonKramer's topic in 2016
No because of the no spoilers thing. Hopefully by the end of the week we'll have it out on audio form, but I won't upload the master list until after the deadline.