Ricky Jackson

Bravo gentlemen. I can't say I agree with a lot of the points raised, or that I haven't found the argument to be tedious at times, but the degree of thought expressed in this whole deal was impressive. Really, a lot of the recent discussion regarding wrestling theory on this board has been impressive and far beyond my ability to articulate.

Johnny Valentine is one of the wrestlers that have intrigued me the most over the last few years. Part of it is because of the mystique surrounding his career due to the lack of footage of his prime years, best matches and angles, etc. The other thing that interests me is how those who saw him wrestle describe his style as being unique and how he was obsessed with realism in his matches, to the point of working a hold for 20 minutes and refusing to run the ropes, among other things. I also love his quote regarding his wrestling philosophy: "I can't make the fans believe wrestling is real, but I can make them believe I'm real." I've really become a fan of guys who worked the methodical, 60-minute draw, "real wrestler" style you don't see anymore, like Dory Funk Jr, Jack Brisco, Thesz, and others. I would LOVE to see more Johnny Valentine matches if possible.

I've always found the term rather ambiguous, but I would consider a wrestler behaving in a manner that suggests they are "thinking" like their character as "good psychology".

Comparing 84-93 Tito to 84-93 Bret is interesting. As far as who had the best matches, Tito from 84-90 would have the edge, although Bret had many memorable tag and singles matches over that time. Survivor Series 90 was a turning point for both men, as Bret had his breakout performance with DiBiase, while Tito had his last real spotlight moment making it to the final match with Hogan and Warrior. Bret gets the big push in 91 and Tito slides into a JTTS role, so Bret has the edge from 91-93 (I really need to see more of Tito's El Matador matches, though). Both were great. Overall, who was better from 84-93? *Flips coin* Uh, Bret.

I'm not sure Steele ever had a really good match, even in the 70s against Sammartino, Morales and Backlund. Heated matches, yes (even though I haven't seen them in years, I think his matches against Savage were at least heated), but not good ones. I guess if you go by the adage "if the crowd is into the match, it's a good match" Steele had tons of good matches over the years. Workrate wise, zero as far as I've seen. He could be a serious candidate for worst-working main eventer of all time.

Still haven't seen this match after all these years. I guess in the Youtube era I have no more excuses...

I think the day you begin to find fault with Ricky Steamboat's in-ring work is the day you've officially watched too much wrestling.

Good show. Nice to see guys like Cena and Orton (his feud with Barrett=zzzzzzz) out of the main picture for a change. I could get into a new New Generation Raw.

Actually, it was Ray Stevens, not Buddy.

I love Grand Illusion and other Renoir films like La Bete Humaine, but The Rules of the Game bored me.

Just my opinion, but I've never understood all the love for The Rules of the Game and 8 1/2.

It's in the 92-96 WWF booking and Rumoured returns, arrivals, matches, etc. threads.

I'm totally outraged. Schmidt should have been in years ago.

Wrestling is theatre, but there are several different ways of telling the story. Personally, my favorite matches over the years "tell a story", or more precisely, build upon a larger story over the course of a feud. It's nice to have logic and psychology as well, but it seems that only a rare breed of wrestler ever really concern themselves with those qualities. I don't think psychology, logic and storytelling are "overrated" any more in a wrestling match than they are in a play or a movie. It's easy to say that some people don't care and just like the high spots, just like some people don't care and just like the explosions and death scenes in movies or whatever. But you still need a basic structure, a basic story, for people to "care" about any of these "moments" within the performance in the first place.

I think a lot of "good" writers would be pretty tough to read without a consistent editor, which Dave apparently lacks.

I guess I feel obligated to at least do a Tito list: -Greg Valentine -Randy Savage -Curt Hennig -Rick Martel -Paul Orndorff No surprise that it's really all about the first two for me. Despite starting a thread in the man's honour, there are a ton of Tito matches I've never seen. I'm sure there are some gems from his AWA stint, and plenty of WWF that could change the last two names on the list. Tito-Hennig from SNME in 1990 is a really great match. Orndorff makes the list solely because as a young fan I remember finding the time limit draw between the two from an early CHV being a pretty fun match.

I'm behind you 100% in this regard. I love good matches as much as the next guy, but honestly, good matches are a dime a dozen. The problem with modern wrestling is not a lack of good matches or good workers. The problem with modern wrestling, or at least what bothers me the most and is the main reason I've run so hot and cold on WWE and other promotions for a good ten years, is that good angles, storylines, feuds, whatever, are so rare these days and have been for quite some time. I'm an angles junkie, a feud junkie, and always have been. I know that there are great matches on Superstars, or on Smackdown, or ECW had some great stuff, and Raw has great matches from time to time, but I just don't care. I need more than just random great matches to keep me interested on a week to week basis. I know that the days of booking wrestling like Watts, Jerry Jarrett, Gary Hart, even Pat Patterson, are long gone and will likely never return. I know WWE is like McDonalds or Wal-Mart, with a conservative, uniform, type of presentation that is tried and true and very, very successful, but I can only take it in small doses because it so damn repetitive. Almost everybody looks the same and cuts similar promos and the feuds are basic and, yes, the "gothy crappy punk nu metal vibe" is ten years out of date and everything in WWE seems frozen in time, circa 2003, etc, etc, etc... Anyway, I have to go. Maybe I'll rant more later.

2008 was actually a pretty solid year for WWE. The Rumble, No Way Out and Mania were all very good shows to start the year, the Flair retirement Raw was really great, and Jericho and Michaels had an awesome old-style feud that went on for about six months or so. Of course there was nonsense like Mike Adamle as GM and Kane kidnapping Rey (although the segment when Adamle demanded Kane reveal what he was carrying in the bag was strangely amusing), but stuff like that didn't overwhelm the shows like some of the poor booking does today IMO. 2008 was really the last time I was weekly viewer, of Raw anyway.

As a spin off from a thread in the 93 yearbook, here's a little heel Doink appreciation: Most of you guys have probably seen these two matches before, but until a week or so ago they were new to me (have I ever mentioned how bitter I am Raw was not available in Canada until 1995?): Doink vs Jannetty Doink vs Jannetty 2 out of 3 Falls These are two fun matches and a pretty good showcase of Borne's talents. Definitely one of my all time fave heels.

I think the plan (if one even existed) was Patera would beat Backlund and have a run as champ until Vince Sr had a new babyface ready to headline, who would beat Patera, not for Patera to turn face at any point. Not to get all Marvel Comics "What If" here, but I think it is interesting to speculate who Vince Sr would have groomed for this hypothetical new headline babyface with Backlund out of the picture. I wonder if, given the right deal, Rhodes would have worked New York full time at this point, because he was certainly over enough to be a long-term headliner. And Tommy Rich as a pretty boy southern heel in New York would have been pretty awesome.

I don't think the length of Backlund's reign was set in stone. What if he had bombed on top? I think another Meltzer story (from the issue he did years back on WWE history from 74-83 IIRC) is that Patera was ready as a back-up plan if Backlund failed to draw. Maybe Dylan has better info on that one.

Meltzer and Graham's story (accepted fact?) is Vince Sr had the exact day of the Backlund title win (Feb 20, 78) set by around Oct 76 or so, after Bruno "gave his notice".

I've seen the footage of Luger and Brody in the cage, and I don't see how there was any "misunderstanding", at least on Brody's part. Brody clearly stops selling for Lex about five minutes in, Luger continues to pound away for what seems like an eternity with Brody just staring at him stone faced, the crowd begins to sense something weird is going on, and then Luger finally leaves the cage out of sheer frustration. Brody didn't sit on the turnbuckle and Lex didn't really "freak out". Obviously Brody wanted to screw with Lex and whoever was running the Florida show, but I have no clue whether it was premeditated or not.

And what has Lesnar done this year exactly? Dave might as well have put Randy Savage on the ballot.

To be fair, Ted's two Mania losses did little to hurt him, and they helped put over the victors in a meaningful way. He lost a match to Savage he should have (kayfabe) won, and the win made Savage a top guy and started the Megapowers angle. And it would have really made no sense or helped anyone for him to beat Virgil in their first match against each other, as Virgil needed as much credibility as a wrestler as he could get at that point.