Shining Wiz

Same boat as Thatcher? His career is twice as long, probably 5 times the matches and was on a higher level 7 years ago than Thatcher is now.

Export the hottest heel angle you can think of in history, export it entirely to today's crowd.......different reaction because different crowd. This conversation has wandered way off from my original comment that Lawler would be one of, if not the, least athletic guy in my top 100.

Yeah, but no one tried to jump the rail to help him any time got beat down, so they're obviously not that into it. Sorry for the snark......long night watching an embarrassing election.

It's like movies. We all know everyone is playing a role, and most of the time, even when we really like it and were into it, we still know it's just actors playing a role. Once in a while, someone is so good they get past that, and if we're really lucky more than one thing that takes us past that line is going on at the same time. Before you knew it was just a movie though, that line didn't exist.

WWE's problem isn't that people don't care about the wrestlers so much that we all know 90% of matches won't end without someone hitting a finisher, so it's hard to get people invested in the early part of a match. And are you really saying jumping a railing in the 70's or 80's has the same connotations it does now? Wrestling wise, we all know it's a work, so the edge is off the emotional blade, and society wise it's become increasingly less acceptable since the Monica Seles incident. And I'm not sure Han is on the same plane of athleticism as someone like Ziggler or Rollins or Styles. No reason for him to be considering his style.

Several posts earlier regarding how everything today is worse except they flip more, etc, etc... Maybe 'dismiss' was a stronger word than necessary, but my point stands.

Because people show emotions differently now. If you jump a rail you're getting your as kicked and possibly arrested. It's unacceptable today. Throwing things is also frowned upon. Today, people chant and cheer. It's how they show emotion. Or they bitch on twitter or the net. Things change. Not sure the relevance of the mat wrestling comment.

"Wrestling was smarter back then" is just shit people say. Mostly here & DVDVR. Today is tomorrow's good old days. Everything used to better than it is now. Everything was better when we were kids. When it was pure, before it all changed. As much as I love old wrestling, and enjoy some aspects of it more, I find it hard to take people who completely dismiss modern wrestling on the basis that it was better then, whenever then is. I often think those people don't actually lie wrestling, but rather their memories of wrestling. Which is totally cool, but it really makes it hard to take people seriously when the dismiss comments like joe's offhand.

When dudes are exposed as complete non athletes, I can usually no longer take them very seriously or suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy them. That doesn't necessarily relate to Lawler or why I don't think much of him, but I will say he's very much a late 70's, early 80's type of wrestler, which for me was a pretty dry era loaded with guys who in my opinion would be badly exposed today due to a lack of athleticism. Not so much Lawler, who would probably get over in any era due to his charisma. With that said, I do think Lawler was very fortunate to be in the territory he happened to be in though. Even by the standards of the time, he wouldn't have been as accepted in some other places where the workrate demands were different. I would also argue that from a match quality standpoint, worldwide pro wrestling has never been better than 2013 & 2014. Of course, that's obviously a matter of opinion. I think All Japan glory days would fit right in today, as would vintage ROH (which is sort of cheating, because we're talking stuff only a few years old). Pretty much everything else is being blown to bits by what today's wrestlers are doing in the ring athletically & creatively. As a whole, high level pro wrestlers have never been smoother or as refined as they are right now, and that's because as a whole we're dealing with far superior athletes, and the training is far superior too. There is no more nonsensical & useless stretching taking place, or silly nonsense like not smartening guys up until they hit the ring for their first match. At least not in America. Look at the last two G1's, or something like Cavernario vs Rey Cometa from last night, or Bryan/Cena from last year's SummerSlam. You put this stuff on in 1987 and it obliterates all of it. And Bryan/Cena wasn't even good enough to crack my ten best matches of the year, and a guy like Cometa is hardly considered a world beater (although Cometa would be a legendary flyer with the things he can do had he been around in the 80's. Today he's just another guy.). Dolph Ziggler has TV matches practically every week that would be considered classics if they happened in the 80's. Today, he's an underachiever. The standards are higher now. Much of that is due to athleticism. I'm 100% certain the 50th best match of the year these days would win MOTY most years in the 70's & 80's. But that doesn't matter. It's only fair to compare things in the context of their own time. And it doesn't also mean that sometimes things can't transcend an era and hold up. I'm rambling way off topic now, which is supposed to be Lawler. The rest of this belongs in the dreaded "Do standards change?" thread, I guess. I don't understand this logic. How does modern day athleticism cover up the flaws in psychology/match structuring/selling etc. that's done so much in todays world compared to the 70s/80s where those facets were perfected?I agree. I don't get W2TBD's talking point at all. Because guys who are a 6/10 in psychology and 10/10 in athleticism stand out and make a big splash. Is Dolph Ziggler the equal of Ric Flair in psychology? No. But if you put just about any decent Ziggler match on TBS in 1985 and fandom's collective head explodes at the level of athleticism he shows. Today, he's just an ok guy. I think Joe's point was mostly that whatever the level of psychology they held, a lot of guys from the 70's and 80's would look like shit in the ring today because they wouldn't be able to keep up.

I posted this in a thread regarding in reference to a Timothy Thatcher match, but it gets my point across regarding shoot style I think: Not sure that's a hurdle I get across in terms of shoot style.

Thanks....I'll report back after doing my homework.

Specifics would be hard....I watched a fair bit of AWA a while ago, and haven't felt the need to search him out specifically since. I seem to remember some matches as Sheik Blackwell with Adnan as his manager, and some tags with Patera. Feel free to suggest anything.

I have to admit the number of people whose opinion I respect from my short time here who are giving Blackwell so much love legitimately shocks me. By no means am I saying he was awful or even bad, I thought he was fine for a guy as big as he was, and surprisingly athletic, but ahead of Vader? I've seen plenty of Blackwell, and he never struck me as being at THAT level. I've got me some remedial watching to do.

I'd reiterate my point about the context of these geriatric matches as well. Funk is nostalgia on a tiny Indy show, not being booked to have a top match in Wrestlemania at 60. That doesn't mean you don't consider Funks old man matches, or that Flair's retirement match outweighs the Steamboat trilogy, but there are concrete differences.

I did point out in the original question that this would apply to a great number of candidates, not just Flair.

Prince Devitt Ray Stevens

Well, he's not the man to beat for me, and I'll probably consider everything you just mentioned in figuring who goes on my list and where.

In a way, yes. I think I'd get a lot more push back on Bryan as a #1 option if he hadn't had the WWE run he has. More specifically in terms of declines, it's a rare wrestler who does it in the ring for the biggest company going. I'm sure Sting wasn't so hot over 50 in TNA, but it's TNA so who saw it? Simple truth that higher profile positions are going to have a wider effect on opinions of wrestlers.

I think there's a difference doing a match I front of 75 people at aVFW Hall and one in front of 12,000 people live and 3.5 million on tv. So, yeah, I'd say Flair's "post-prime" being so open that it gets considered more.

Sometimes it is better to burn out than to fade away. A guy like Jumbo or Steamboat was done so quickly, he never had the chance to grow old and decline before our eyes/on video. Flair (and I by no means think he is the worst 'offender') and guys like Foley, Wahoo, Watts and others stayed around long enough that the lasting memory, or at least an aspect of it, is them struggling to be 1/2 as good as they were in their prime......or worse, 1/2 as good as when they were already past their prime. For the record, I don't personally think it will effect my booting that much, but we are talking the elite of the elite here, and the vote isn't for "best wrestler at their absolute peak", it's for the best of all time, and for that, all their time in the ring matters to some degree.

I was suggesting he may not have been cutting with much enthusiasm.

Not a figure skating watcher, I see.

Pairs figure skating is the best sport analogy.

If you looked the Rock, would you be eager to scar your forehead like a Dusty?

Agreed. Cena is not particularly athletic.