JAC

I agree with the foregoing re bringing back the time-limit draw. It makes even more sense now that they're willing to give matches some time on TV. It also seems like something that they're unlikely to overdo (unlike cheap finishes). This would be great for TV matches involving the IC or US Titles, with the payoff coming during the next PPV when the time limit gets rolled back to 30 or 60 minutes and the promise that the champ won't be able to use stalling and retreating to retain his title when over-matched.

Parv: There's a great match between Tsuruta and Robinson from 7/17/76 that's worth checking out. The falls are JIP, but there's about 35 or 40 minutes that are shown, so it's about as complete as the Funk v. Brisco match you reviewed on Good Will Wrestling. I couldn't find a YouTube link, but it made a Jumbo Tsuruta commercial tape and aired on TV, so it's out there. If you liked the 1977 matches, you should like this one equally well. A complete version of the 1976 match would be a holy grail for me. I agree with your sentiments on the Robinson matches you reviewed. I've seen them all in the past and am planning on rewatching them soon. I really like the Jumbo matches, as both guys have a lot of high impact suplexes that they can pull out for high spots down the stretch. I love those dead-weight suplexes that were in style during that era. Both guys work at a fine clip, so the matches strike me as being more accessible to viewers more used to modern wrestling. The Baba match is probably my favourite Baba singles match. I've had a hard time getting into Baba because of his awkward look and style, but this match really drew me in. Robinson is such a fun guy to watch. I wish he could have had a run with the NWA Title in the mid- to late-70's. He could have done some interesting work as a touring champion.

Therein lies the rub. A bad performance by the women will wreck the experiment, but a great performance does not guarantee its success. The under- and midcard males don't have the deck stacked against them to the extent that the women do. Which is really saying something! I don't know whether any think short of a nuclear weapon could blast through the misogyny that is seemingly at play.

Is there any long-term planning anymore? Do they ever sit back and chart out where people are going to be in a year's time and how they're going to get there? For wins and losses to matter, or to make effective use of screwy finishes, you have to be building towards something--to have an actual plan. Right now, they mostly seem to be in a perpetual state of drift. Whenever they do deliver a focused push to someone, like Roman Reigns, they seem to hand the planning over to King Midas' idiot brother, who turns all that he touches into shit.

I know it's off the main topic, but thank you for saying that. This business about her being a great non-wrestling performer kills me. She's beyond awful as a character, not just in content but also in delivery.

Yuck. I think I hate that worse than anything else. Run-ins are the absolute worst. They just scream "phoney", as no real sport would allow crap like that to happen. I wonder if I'll one day be able to watch the Boston Bruins stage a run-in (skate-in?) to deprive the Montreal Canadiens of a victory in Game Seven of the Stanley Cup Finals?

All good points. A CO, DQ or no contest ending can be used effectively to build to a pay-off. I just have such bad memories of times when promotions forgot the part about the actual pay-off! One cheap finish that I actually like is seeing the babyface get DQ'd. It fits with the Bill Watts philosophy of having the babyface beat himself. It's great for building to a rematch, as the babyface has to control his temper to gain a victory, and it doesn't require the heel to look weak by angling for a cheap win. Rollins would have looked much better if he could have gotten a pin on a prone Lesnar after Undertaker laid him out. I'm not really a fan of that sort of finish, but at least he wouldn't have come across as being ENTIRELY irrelevant.

Some well placed count-out and disqualification finishes might help a bit, but the WWE would do it to death. There's nothing worse than watching a match knowing that a fuck finish is bound to occur. It kills promotions. You're doing a podcast with Grimmas about a promotion that found a way to succeed without screwy finishes. It can be done well--just not by Vince & Co. It would require competent booking, something not seen in the WWE since... 1992?

That was a fun show. I actually like Cena v. Owens better than most of the panelists did--I though they worked a more deliberate pace than in their previous two encounters. There was too much finisher spamming, though. I wish they could have toned it down in each of the encounters--have Owens avoid the AA in the first match, have Cena avoid the pop-up powerbomb in the second, and have Owens kick out of a single AA in the final match. I agree that Cena can't put everyone over--it would lose its effect. But eventually, if they ever want to make a guy, they'll need to give someone that all-important victory over Cena in a feud. Owens felt like a breath of fresh air; I wish it had been him. I'm surprised than nobody seemed too bothered by the layout of Reigns v. Wyatt. It's was an okay match, but completely the WRONG match for the build-up. Wyatt stalked Reign's daughter. How the hell does the match start with a collar-and-elbow tie-up? Reigns should have jumped Wyatt the instant he got in the ring and beaten him to a bloody pulp. Don't book for a bloodbath and deliver a conventional match. If the threaten a guy's child, he's gonna try to kill you, not defeat you. This layout problem is not on the wrestlers themselves--blame the bookers and the agents-- but five seconds in, I was saying "they're wrestling the wrong match". I think that hurts, even if the match--in isolation--was otherwise decent. I didn't despise the ending to the main event, but that's mainly because I didn't care about it. Seth Rollins makes me want to turn the channel (at least, that's how I feel based on the way he's been booked). And I didn't love the Lesnar "suplex city" routine at WrestleMania, so I was dreading a rehash of it here. But even though I wasn't bothered, it's tough to see how this makes sense. I guess they think they can get one more payday out of Undertaker before they ship him off to the glue factory.

Great suggestion about using Hansen to injure Backlund, thereby laying the groundwork not only for Backlund's defeat but also for a series with future-champ Hogan. Cool idea! With regard to the Robinson scenario, I wouldn't have seen him holding the title until Hogan arrives at the end of 1983. I would have had Robinson win the title in the spring of 1982 and hold it until the autumn, when you could have a strong babyface like Dusty Rhodes win the title (although I'm not sure what his availability would have been at the time). If you had Dusty, he could have had a one-year run with the belt before dropping it to the Iron Sheik. I would have liked to have seen the Iron Sheik have a slightly longer reign to build him up before being demolished by Hogan--three to six months, maybe. So have Dusty drop the belt in September. You still get to the same place--Hogan winning the title from the Iron Sheik in January 1984--but you cut out Backlund's decline and replace it with a Robinson transitional reign, a year with the charismatic Rhodes on top (possibly helping to raise the profile of the WWF in some of the markets that McMahon will soon want to expand into, thanks to Rhodes' notoriety) and a stronger transitional reign for the Iron Sheik to beat up some all-American babyface challengers, thereby making Hogan's title win more meaningful. Not that Hogan needed any additional help getting over.

Here's the clip of that moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0IGgNtuW-4. What nuclear heat that is! That was pretty much why I suggested 1981 or 1982. I had forgotten that the Backlund v. Valentine held-up title situation happened so late in the year, otherwise I would have just said 1982. One wouldn't want to miss that moment. Of course, at the time, VJM might not have realized that he had just watched the peak of his champion's reign. I wonder when it set it that Backlund's time had passed.

This is a tricky question because the answer depends on when you take the title off of Backlund and what the longer term plans are. It seems like 1981 or 1982 would be an appropriate time to make the switch, before shine comes completely off Backlund in 1983. I would think that the goal is to have Backlund lose to a credible intermediary who will then, as some point, drop the title to whomever becomes the next anointed babyface megastar. What about Billy Robinson as a potential successor? He fought Backlund in Montreal on August 11, 1982 (based on their respective Wikipedia pages, I believe this match was a time limit draw, although the History of WWE website doesn't give a result). Backlund v. Robinson is something of a dream match for me, as Robinson could play to Backlund's strengths in the ring. Robinson would have been a bit long in the tooth by 1982 (he turned 44 that year), but Nick Bockwinkel was 47 at the time and still AWA champion, so I don't think Robinson's age was an insurmountable obstacle. I figure that Robinson would be good for a 3-6 month reign before putting Backlund's successor over. It might be fun to see Robinson come in as a babyface and "international star". He can initially wrestle Backlund in a scientific babyface match-up ending in a time-limit draw. WWF President Hisashi Shinma can then order a rematch in which the competitor's tempers flare, leading to a double DQ or double countout finish, but with Backlund and Robinson shaking hands afterwards and affirming their friendship as sportsmen. Nonetheless, a steel cage match is ordered to decide who is the better wrestler (and who shall be the champion). The wrestlers attempt to keep things civil, but civility quickly breaks down in the cage. At one point, Robinson gets caught in the ropes. Backlund, seeing an opportunity to win, starts to exit the cage. However, in the interest of fair play, he turns around and helps Robinson get unhooked from the ropes so they can finish the match squarely. Backlund begins to dominate before accidentally getting himself tangled up in the ropes--think Jumbo Tsuruta at the end of his August 1987 match with Genichiro Tenryu. Robinson moves as if he's about to help untangle Backlund, returning the earlier favour, then thinks better of it and exits the cage, taking the championship and turning heel in the process. Ultimately, though, if the person who beats Backlund is only to be a transitional champion (which I think was likely to occur, and is what ultimately did occur when the Iron Sheik took the title), the most important questions are who is to succeed Backlund in the long term, and how long do you want the transitional champion to hold the belt? I personally prefer the notion of a transitional champion who holds the title for a number of months, not unlike Billy Graham, as opposed to a footnote title reign like those of Ivan Koloff or Stan Stasiak. EDIT: I forgot to mention the obvious--I thoroughly enjoyed the podcast. Great work!

Great card overall. Nuclear heat for the finish of that final match. The title tournament + the Midnights v. Rougeaus match makes this an over-the-top good night of tag wrestling. Well done, guys!

I can't believe you gave a TV taping to those dirty Monctonians. LOL. You guys should be able to do well in Halifax. In the 70's, The Forum was being run weekly with 3,000-4,000 attendance. Running less frequently with joint cards, you can probably do even better.

You can probably do better than you might think, especially if you run an expanded schedule in the summer. Quebec City is bigger than Halifax and had an NHL-sized arena. It should be a regular stop. And there are a bunch of small cities and large towns with QMJHL teams that have 2,000-5,000 seat arenas and populations adequate to support semi-regular shows. They would be great for summer tours. I believe Ottawa and Cornwall in Ontario were also part of the Montreal territory, but Toronto's expansion plans might be an obstacle to running there! Then again, the 1983 project is about booking, not business. I'm just fixating on how to max out the profits. Can't wait to see the Montreal performers working the joint shows in Halifax. Nice to see my city being spoiled with joint shows by two big-time promotions.

The fact is not lost on me! I'm excited to see the two promotions coming together to run my humble little town. The Metro Centre is about 5 years old at this point, if you need a higher capacity building to run a super card in Halifax. Keep up the good work! Maybe there will be a big event there in the future! I'm not sure about running in the Maritmes during the winter though.. any thoughts. It was always a summer promotion, historically speaking. But I don't see any reason why you couldn't run here in the winter. The biggest issue you face, summer or winter, is a logistical one--getting your wrestlers from Toronto down to the Maritimes. I wonder if a one-off show would be able to turn a profit given the cost of bringing in talent. That said, you could run a four or five city circuit to squeeze some extra dollars out of the whole region and offset the cost of flying in talent. The Montreal crew may be less of a problem, as they might consider driving, especially you run a proper loop.

The fact is not lost on me! I'm excited to see the two promotions coming together to run my humble little town. The Metro Centre is about 5 years old at this point, if you need a higher capacity building to run a super card in Halifax. Keep up the good work!

On my way to the box office at the Forum to get tickets for that big July 11th card. I expect a big turnout of fans eager to support Burke & Pettipas. If Burke loses, Halifax riots!

From thehistoryofwwe.com. I went with my Dad with press passes given to us by an uncle. It turns out that press pass = no seats. I had fun anyway and became a lifelong fan. WWF @ Halifax, Nova Scotia - Forum - February 10, 1989 (7,500; sell out) Paul Roma pinned Boris Zhukov The Honkytonk Man pinned Bret Hart with a roll up as Hart tried to get at Jimmy Hart on the ring apron Brutus Beefcake pinned Ron Bass Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard defeated Shawn Michaels & Marty Jannetty Rick Martel pinned King Haku WWF World Champion Randy Savage defeated WWF IC Champion the Ultimate Warrior via count-out

On the subject of the original post, when I watched the WWE's Sting blu-ray set, I was shocked at how many matches ended other than by Scorpion Deathlock. I like the varied-finish approach. What's the point of doing a sunset flip or an inside cradle it it never wins you a match? I do give Bret the edge here, in that his seemingly random finishes fit the matches beautifully. For example, the finish to the Piper and Austin Survivor Series matches made perfect sense given that his opponents made frequent use of the sleep and the million dollar dream respectively. The finish only makes sense against an opponent with a credible sleep-type hold. Credit to Sting for using the powerslam against Vader, though. It was the perfect counter under the circumstances. I wish the WWE were more open to doing finishes like this.

He probably used that as the finish to multiple matches. As GOTNW said, he did it to Vader at Starrcade 1992 (https://youtu.be/tctYdhZkbJs?t=1m55s) and when winning the title from Vader in London on March 11, 1993 (https://youtu.be/2Q4IAUoHNvs?t=13m32s). I'm not nearly clever enough to figure out how to embed those videos.

Great write-up on the 01/20/94 match. I certainly understood and agreed with your point. I suppose that my concern is that some people (not you, and not necessarily anyone in this thread) mistake the greater enjoyment they get from seeing a good match from a less-heralded worker as being indicative of that worker being better than a more heralded worker. Hashimoto is a guy who's fresher to me because I've watched fewer of his matches that I have Misawa's and because I've watched those Hashimoto matches fewer times than I have the Misawa matches. Watching a good Hashimoto match that I've never seen before probably hits me in the gut more than re-watching a great Misawa match that I've watched six times. Familiarity breeds contempt, or at least apathy! Similarly, if I watch a 3.5-star Misawa match from NOAH, I'm probably thinking about how Misawa had become a shell of his former self by that time, whereas a similar performance from a mid-90s NJPW match might have me thinking, "chalk up another solid performance for Hash!". But at the end of the day, I can detach myself from the freshness of the Hashimoto match and the lack of expectations burdening my enjoyment to compare whether the match itself and the work within the match is better, worse or comparable to the Misawa match and Misawa's work. I hope that people don't conflate a wrestler's apparent 'freshness' to them with the question of who's actually better.

I'll second that. Flair needs to have a second to make sure some questions get asked and to keep Flair from rambling. I think the co-host's presence has made the podcast a lot more enjoyable for me. Flair can be entertaining, but left to his own devices, he'd talk about nothing but divorces and drinking escapades. This Conrad fellow is doing a decent job of reeling him in. The episodes seem to be improving as they go on, so I'll keep listening for now.

I think it speaks to the greatness of a candidate like Misawa, Kawada, Flair or Tsuruta that reeling off a four-star match comes across as a ho-hum accomplishment. What would be a memorable match for another wrestler seems practically forgettable for someone like these greats. I do like Hashimoto, significantly more than Chono and Mutoh for that matter. I rank him rather highly. But I think Misawa is on another level entirely, one of a small handful of guys I could see being my pick for No. 1. Misawa's work on top gives him a big advantage in my opinion. Maybe it makes me a "movez" guy (God, I hate that use of a "z"), but I like what Misawa brings to the table in terms of offence. He had a better variety of moves with which he could build his offensive sequences. On the whole, I think Misawa sold a little bit better than Hashimoto too, although I don't remember Hashimoto having anything distracting like Misawa's "adjust the tights, flick the hair away from the eyes" tick when selling. I do agree that he's the one of the Three Musketeers who would have best fit in with the All Japan heavyweights. He's the only one of them that I can imagine having dream matches with the Four Pillars in the mid-nineties that would not have been disappointing.

I don't think Bret was ever meant to be the ace in that way. Hogan, Cena and Sammartino were all guys who were presented as being unbeatable superheroes. Same with Austin, to a large extent. They were larger than life characters who stood head and shoulders above the rest. They were also practically unbeatable unless their opponents engaged in illegal shenanigans. Bret was more "first among equals" with the rest of the top of the card. He was the best, but could still be beat. Shawn was the same way. You didn't see them kicking out of their opponents' finishers, and they could sometimes lose cleanly without their opponents having to cheat. It struck me that the WWF had moved away from the Superman mould at the time Bret was on top; after Hogan, I don't think the WWF had a true Superman-style ace again until Austin. Bret was in the same mould as Savage, Flair and Michaels. In contrast, Cena conforms more closely to the Superman mould.