marrklarr

Yeah, most of them seemed to go out not with a bang, but a whimper. What made the dissolution of the UWF so unique? I know it wasn't an NWA affiliate (had it been in the past?) and wasn't closely associated with JCP. And I guess its death was much quicker and more decisive than what happened to the companies that slowly faded away. Were there other features that made the UWF a special case? Some other questions (I'm still new around here, so I hope these aren't dumb questions): Was Memphis the last traditional territory to fall? Would anyone consider ECW or Smokey Mountain to be a "territory" in the traditional sense, or was that just an outdated concept by then? My guess is that by then all promotions, no matter how small or niche, had national ambitions and weren't content to hunker down in one region forever.

For those who remember or who have read WON and other sources from that era, what was the general mood when the territories started folding and selling out to Vince and JCP? Were their demises mourned and lamented? Or were some of these promotions so feeble and pathetic by the end that the feeling was more like GOOD RIDDANCE? Were there any voices rooting for national promotions to take over? The reason I ask is that I know I have a tendency to idealize and romanticize the territorial era, and rightly so for the most part. Clearly something special was lost when they went away. But is this just hindsight? What did people think at the time?

These are great. Been wasting a LOT of time at work reading. I've been reading Yohe's biography of Strangler Lewis. I love it, but, yeah, he really needs a proofreader.

Nice rundown. Makes sense. I am open to the idea that most of the interesting work going on right now is on "analysis" and "research." (I also agree with putting these words in quotes.) If you could point to some of the best examples of this kind of work, I'd like to have a closer look. Is it fair to say that most of it centers on evaluating ring work? This is a worthy topic, and a lot of good has come from it. I worry that it can be a bit reductive, though. Wrestling is more than just the dance steps of a match. If the best thinkers are spending all their time breaking down match footage frame by frame, will they lose sight of the big picture?

More likely, his editors choose for him. Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading. This site is full of them. John good point

I love James. Wouldn't it be great if he came up with some kind of workrate analysis for wrestling?

More likely, his editors choose for him. Name one writer who writes about wrestling, but does not write for a wrestling publication, that you enjoy reading.

I will be very interested to read about that.

I see what you're saying, but there are some key differences that I'd like to point out. First of all, when it comes to football, basketball, baseball, Grantland's audience, as well as the audience for other sports media outlets, isn't general at all. They are there specifically for football, basketball, and baseball coverage and usually show up with a solid understanding of those sports. Wrestling, on the other hand, is one of the most niche subjects covered there. This is why Shoemaker is constantly having to explain and define basic concepts that most of us take for granted while trying to educate readers with historical background that for us is too obvious to mention. A hardcore fan would have about as much need for this as Stephen Hawking would Physics 101. Now, there are some topics discussed by Grantland like advanced stats in baseball that are niche and do get explained for a general audience without alienating the initiated. Hardcore stat heads usually do love it when a good mainstream writer like Jonah Keri or Joe Posnanski can explain advanced stats to average readers. But this is a special case, because there is an ongoing war between sabermetrics and traditional ideas about baseball stats. The saber crowd desperately wants their stuff to be understood by average fans, so it celebrates writers who are good at this. I think Shoemaker is his own worst enemy because a lot of his recent work has been shit. On the other hand, how do you simultaneously appeal to general readers without alienating hardcore fans? It's enough to make you wonder if Grantland needs a wrestling writer. The hardcore won't get much out of it, and the mainstream doesn't really care.

As much as I dig the guy, I think this could apply to Bam Bam Bigelow. That's an interesting comparison. I like it, but here's another one: Magnum T.A. I like Magnum a lot, but I'd argue that he's one of the most overrated figures in history. I mean that in a general sense, because I don't feel qualified to judge his skill as a worker, though I'd wager he is overrated as a worker since the enduring image of Magnum is the superb I Quit match with Tully. Could his whole body of work live up to that standard? Magnum is a mythic figure in the sense that lots of people just take it as a given that he was destined to be wrestling's biggest star and the savior of JCP. He had extraordinary potential, but it was far from inevitable that he would reach the heights of success that many people assume that he would. But like Brody, his career was cut short under tragic circumstances then eclipsed and distorted by legend. It's not a perfect comparison, but what do you think?

Zach Lowe writes about basketball, and fairly well at that. Grantland has many good contributors. (My favorite is Rany Jazayerli.) This puts the lie to me? Won't dispute that. Have you read Dead Wrestler of the Week?

I'm not surprised that Shoemaker isn't well-regarded around here. People who write on certain subjects for a general audience have nothing to offer the initiated. (It's the same reason a medical research scientist wouldn't bother to read a dumbed-down write-up on the results of a cancer treatment study in the newspaper. Only a peer-reviewed medical journal article would be worth reading for an actual expert) Some of his dispatches on the current product are eye-rollingly bad, but I have to say, I loved the guy's work in the Dead Wrestler of the Week series. (Perhaps that's just because I'm not on the same level of expertise as most of the PWO population.) I really think Shoemaker is a talented writer, and I believe his work has appeared in some prestigious magazines in the past. He's been described as pretentious, but that's not really fair. He writes in a style that is intelligent and high-brow, or at least meant to be. I think you can only call it pretentious, however, if it's bad. But the Dead Wrestler series is fantastic. Check it out if you haven't already. Writing intelligently about topics that are considered dumb pop culture has become a very tiresome fad in the last 10-15 years. Chuck Klosterman made a whole career out of it. But what I love about Shoemaker is that he is utterly sincere. When Klosterman writes about Coco Puffs or Saved by the Bell, he always does so with a wink, as if to say, "Can you believe I'm writing about something so silly? Aren't I cute!" It's a goof. It's cloying schtick. But when Shoemaker writes an essay worthy of New York Magazine on, say, Road Warrior Hawk, he isn't winking. He means it. He honestly believes that Road Warrior Hawk is deserving of such a serious treatment. I think he's right, and I admire him for it.

You're probably right on all counts. But I would ask, then, what do we do with Brody and his legacy? Does he even have one? He's been forgotten largely, as you point out. Is this a good thing, or does he deserve a place in wrestling history? I feel like he matters somehow. This may just be based on emotional argument, though. It FEELS like he should matter, so I want to say that he does. But maybe he doesn't. Is there anybody from the past that we could compare him to? A guy who is overrated as a worker and mostly forgotten, but who still has a hold on the hearts and minds of a considerable amount of serious fans?

Come to think of it, I saw Warrior put the Undertaker in a body bag at a house show in 1991. Didn't seem quite as significant at the time. Taker was red hot, but Warrior was still a bigger star then. But in retrospect, yeah, he definitely belongs on the list of all-star JTTW.

I came to this board after listening to the outstanding podcast Where the Big Boys Play, and I've since started listening to the other great podcasts associated with this community. As a wrestling fan, I lack the kind of hardcore bona fides that most of you possess. I almost feel like I don't fit in. I grew up watching WWF, NWA/WCW, and AWA in the late 80s and early 90s, but back then I always preferred WWF. I guess I liked the cartoonishness, and I was too young and unsophisticated to appreciate the superior in-ring work to be found in NWA/WCW. The crappy production values of non-WWF wrestling programs made me look down on them by comparison. But I still watched Flair and the Horsemen (though I hated them, because I wasn't evolved enough to cheer for heels), and I loved Curt Hennig in the AWA. As great as he was as Mr. Perfect, I always kind of resented his WWF career, because I wanted to cheer for the face Hennig I remembered in AWA. Along with Curt, my first wrestling idols were Strike Force and Macho Man (Strike Force won the belts from Hart Foundation on the very first episode of Superstars I ever watched; and Macho's face turn had just occurred at this time). But before long, I became, and still remain, an unrepentant Hogan mark. I had it bad, too. Every time I hear someone say how played-out Hogan's act became and how fed up fans were in the early 90s, I feel like such a philistine, because I ate it up right to the end. I stopped being a serious wrestling fan in 1991 with one last gasp when Flair jumped over to Titan. The last ppv I watched was the '92 Rumble. It was amazing, but I was basically done after that. When the boom happened in the late 90s, I ignored it completely, which was hard to do, because wrestling was everywhere. I didn't watch, but I still knew about Hogan's heel turn, the NWO, Montreal, Tyson & Austin, Foley's Hell in a Cell match. Didn't care. I thumbed my nose at all of it. From time to time, I'd still get nostalgic about the old days, but it wasn't until about a year or two ago that I really gave a shit about wrestling. What pulled me back? I got netflix and started watching all the WWE docs. All of them. I couldn't get enough. Also, I LOVED the Dead Wrestler of the Week series at Deadspin. I know a lot of people here hate Shoemaker's Grantland work, which I won't defend. But Dead Wrestler of the Week was exquisite, and I will powerbomb anyone who says different! After that, I started seeking out podcasts about old school wrestling. It was still just a nostalgia kick. I don't think I took it all that seriously, but then I stumbled on Wrestlespective and finally Where the Big Boys Play. I was hooked! I could listen to Parv and Chad rhapsodize about Tully and Flair all day long. They mention PWO quite a bit, and after months of listening, I decided I'd better come see what the fuss was about. I'm glad I did. I do not possess the kind of scholarly zeal for studying and analyzing matches that many of you have. And as much as I loved wrestling growing up, I never developed into a smart mark. Even basic smark stuff is new to me (I know literally nothing about Japanese wrestling. And don't laugh, but I didn't even know who Meltzer was until a few months ago!) But it's been great reading your posts and learning about the finer points of bumping, selling, working body parts, "telling a story in the ring," and all of the other elements that make up a great match. And I am trying to watch more matches. (I've been seeking out Bockwinkle footage, in particular, because I can't believe how much I failed to appreciate him when I was an AWA fan. I feel legitimately guilty about it.) Anyway, I really like it here. I am eager to be a part of these great discussions. I just hope I don't embarrass myself too much.

Probably not the first guy around here to make this observation, but it just occurred to me that the list of wrestlers who put over the Ultimate Warrior reads like a Who's-Who of all-time greats. The number and magnitude of ring legends who laid down for this dude is absolutely staggering. And most of them did so on the biggest stage of all, Wrestlemania! Hogan Andre' Savage Triple-H Rude Am I missing anybody? These are clean wins too! All of them. It goes without saying that he didn't deserve it, and many have said that he didn't even appreciate what these guys were doing for him. I bring it up not to trash the guy, but just to express how completely mind-blowing it is. Really, it's too easy to slag on Warrior. Plus it's been done to death; overdone, really. (Am I the only one who watched the WWE-produced doc The Self-Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior and felt like the criticism was so over-the-top that it actually made him seem sympathetic? It made me want to defend the crazy bastard.)

Really enjoyed reading this thread. I think I agree most with whomever described Brody as a symbol. He's all image and no substance. But what an image! The gist of what I've been reading here is basically "I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS GUY IS SO FUCKING POPULAR!!!" In short, Brody was a guy who looked like a warrior god, with a mythic outlaw reputation, who was always successful and only on his own terms without becoming a sellout, who was murdered and died prematurely. Frankly, I don't understand why anybody wouldn't understand why he's so fucking popular. For a lot of people, Sid Vicious (no, not THAT Sid Vicious) symbolizes punk rock. He had the look and the attitude. He came along at the right time, hit the zeitgeist right between the eyes, then promptly died a legendary rock-n-roll death. He was a terrible musician, of course. He played the bass about as well as Ed Leslie cut hair. But that's not the point. And if you were to say, "OH, C'MON, DEE DEE RAMONE AND PAUL SIMONON WERE WAY BETTER BASS PLAYERS," you'd be correct, but you'd also be missing the point. Dee Dee and Paul were great, but like it or not, Sid is an icon. And it won't do to say, "Hey, the Ultimate Warrior was popular in his day too." For one thing, the Warrior and every superficial superstar like him never had Brody's street cred. Whether he was a good worker or not, Brody was a legit, self-made renegade badass. Besides, it's not just that Brody was popular or respected in his time, it's that he is a wrestling legend for all times; for reasons that have not all that much to do with his in-ring chops. And that's ok. If you want to say his matches sucked, that's fine. But Brody still matters. He's still an important figure, and he deserves a certain kind of respect for what he meant to wrestling.

Sounds like Haku/Meng is the consensus No. 1 badass. Knowing this makes him a lot more interesting to me, but it also makes it much harder to suspend disbelief when I see him lay down for, say, Shawn Michaels at WM 7. (Wonder who Shawn would rather face in a bar fight: those 12 marines who almost killed him or just one Haku/Meng.) This discussion makes me wonder who would be the LEAST legitimate tough guy in history. My vote: Honkytonk Man. I always remember Summerslam '88 when Superstar Graham, who was on commentary, said: "He better watch out. There are some guys in the back who would take him apart." Can't help but think that some = ALL OF THEM.

Raymond Rougeau was an honest-to-goodness ass stomper? Wow! The guy looked like a youth pastor. See, I love finding out shit like that. Reminds me of the time I learned Dr. Ruth was a sniper for the Israeli army. Astonishing.

I know Harley Race is legendary for being the baddest motherfucker in every dressing room he set foot in. (One of my favorite stories comes from Flair's autobiography in which Flair was set to defend the NWA title somewhere overseas, and there was some concern that the promoters there would stage a screwjob finish to steal the belt. Harley was sent along to be Flair's manager with the understanding that as long as he was there no one was going to take the strap away from Flair.) But I was wondering if there was a discussion to be had as to who were the legitimate badasses in wrestling history. Who were the guys that the other guys just NEVER fucked with? Andre comes to mind. I would imagine Andre could manhandle anyone he wanted. (Although, I think Dynamite Kid said in his book that Andre backed down when challenged once by Bad News Brown. Of course, that doesn't mean that Andre wouldn't have torn him limb for limb.) I think I've also heard that Haku had a reputation for being a very dangerous man, so don't EVER mess with the Colossal Connection, I guess. Anyone else come to mind?