ohtani's jacket

Satanico, El Dandy, Fujiwara, Jumbo and Bull Nakano strike me as better than Bobby Eaton in 1990 (to name five), but I guess it's open to debate.

Arn smokes Eaton as far as I'm concerned, but I'd like to know if 20+ years later anyone would really consider Eaton to have been top five in the world.

I don't agree with a straight up fourth year comparison. Kyoko, Takako and Yoshida were from the same class but the Inoues were pushed before her with Kyoko getting the early push that was meant for Takako. Hase's push began in '87. His juniors career would make a better comparison. Because of Yoshida's knee injury, you could limit it to Hase's '88 against Yoshida's '92.

I wanted to compare Takada to another flakey ass wrestler and the Shawn Michaels comparison amused me. It's a bit unfair on Michaels, tho. I still think you're overstating Yoshida's 92 and I don't agree that she was better than Toyota or Yamada, but accepting all that, how does it put Yoshida on the level of Hase? If, for argument's sake, we define Hase's peak as his shift into the heavyweight ranks then surely the comparable period is either his OE period (overseas experience) or his early juniors work. I'm not trying to be snarky here. Objectively speaking, his experience level was far above Yoshida's. To say a midcard Joshi worker was better than one of the better heavyweights in Japan is a bit extreme. She may have been more fun to watch for a Joshi fan, but if you said that Kyoko was better than Hase then that's something I could buy. To me, Yoshida was below Takako's '93 and I don't know if you could argue for Takako's '93 as being anything more than underrated. There's a bunch of 80s Joshi midcard workers who were comparable to '92 Yoshida. I don't see how she hit such great heights but I guess I'm not a huge fan.

You could probably argue that 2006 was the peak of Finlay's American work, but I think Finlay is similar to Negro Navarro in that his best work has come long after his physical prime. Early WoS Finlay is awesome, but as soon as he hooked up with Princess Paula it took a nose dive.

That's some rampant Yoshida fanboyism right now. She was put in lengthy matches in '92 with other midcard girls to raise their stature and get them over. She did a good job in those matches, but she wasn't on the level of a Toyota or Yamada in the hierarchy or as a worker. She was carried by Kyoko otherwise they would have had better matches. None of Yoshida's matches that year were great; they're worth watching because they were nice matches that filled in the year and gave a decent picture of what was happening on the rest of the card. After ARSION changed direction, her best match was another shoot style bout against Megumi Fujii. There's no need to compare her with the Shawn Michaels of Japanese wrestling, however.

This is a difficult question to answer as there isn't enough footage for most of my favourite workers, but Tenryu, Austin and Hart strike me as guys who were pretty average pre-peak. A lot of AJW workers got good early, perhaps as a result of mandatory retirement but more likely due to training and background.

Yoshida wasn't a superb worker in '92. She was a promising youngster who had good matches with her peers and was carried by Kyoko in the JGP. Yoshida was great for about 18 months while working a style that her company ultimately dropped. I'd take Hase's career output over that if I were even the teeniest bit interested in New Japan.

There's no way that Yoshida's AJW work is as good as Hase's peak. I don't even like Hase and I think that's a crazy statement.

Kawada was meant to be the heel and Misawa the face, at least in the early part of their feud.

So are Misawa and Kawada. See, that's the problem. US-style rasslin'/sports entertainment is your only frame of reference, and you're acting like anything outside of that doesn't exist. It's kind of like saying that film is inherently limited as an art form and only talking about Hollywood blockbusters. What makes you think Misawa and Kawada were morally neutral?

Why should it be? Last year, the All Blacks entered the Rugby World Cup with the expectation that they'd win it for the first time since 1987. They not only faced the pressure of winning the Cup at home, but winning it for a country that had suffered a coal mining disaster, a major oil spill and an earthquake that destroyed a city and is approaching its 10,000th aftershock. A couple of matches into the tournament, their star player and rugby equivalent of a quarterback tore his groin in training and was ruled out of the Cup. Then it came out that the captain and greatest player of his generation had a foot injury that was so bad that he couldn't train. For four years, the opposition had taunted us that if one or either of these players went down we'd be fucked even if we were playing at home. It was basically a nightmare come true. There was no real replacement for the star pivot who injured himself in training so we had to rely on a young guy who had spent most of the season recovering from a broken jaw. So what happens? Groin injury in the quarters. Next off the rank was a third choice pivot who'd been on holiday before his call-up. World Cup final, thirty minutes in and he goes down with a knee injury. On comes the fourth choice pivot, the man nobody wanted to see play for the All Blacks again because his poor decision making had cost us games in the past and who a week before had missed his call-up because he was out fishing. Suddenly, you've got the most hated player in recent All Black history vying for redemption in arguably the most important game in All Black history. He kicks a penalty goal (just barely) and the All Blacks take an 8-0 lead into half time. Shortly after the break, France score a try and it's 8-7. The All Blacks hold onto a one point lead and for thirty two minutes they have to defend it with the captain on one leg and one kick in penalty range being the difference between four more years of misery or finally getting this gorilla off our backs. It was an eternity and I hated every second of it, but we wore down the clock, kicked the ball out and ended twenty years of heartbreak. That's the type of thing that inspires a movie not wrestling. It's like the film Clint Eastwood made about South Africa's victory in '95. It doesn't translate to wrestling and even as a movie it doesn't compare to the real thing. We all have our favourite angles and feuds and storylines in wrestling which are nowhere near this scope but well executed and fun to watch. Wrestling doesn't have to be like the All Blacks' World Cup victory to be good and it's debatable whether you can book something like that. The more complex the WWE try to make a story the more cringeworthy it seems. They should be telling wrestling stories not stories from film, television or sport.

Narrative is even more over the top in England than it is in the US. Rooney's issues with ManU in the 2010/2011 season were hyped well beyond their equiv in the US (Melo wanting out of Denver). Add in his injury issues the year before, his performance at the World Cup, his horrid start to the season... It was huge. My thought would be for folks to watch Sky Sports News, which is even more sensationalistic than a norm SportsCenter over here... and we're not even seeing the half of it since we're only seeing Sky's "news" program, not their shows wrapping around the soccer games which are extremely critical in terms of narrative and storyline. Wayne Rooney's issues with United weren't the equivalent of Carmelo Anthony wanting out of Denver. Carmelo wanting out of Denver wasn't a pimple on the ass of Wayne Rooney's issues with United. Rooney, if he'd stuck to his guns and not signed a five year deal two days after signalling his intent to leave, would've been as big a story as Lebron James; it wasn't. There's no way that Sky Sports News is more sensationalistic than SportsCenter. The tabloid press generate plenty of scandal and controversy in the UK but it's chicken feed compared to US stories. Was there a story in British sport last year as big as the Miami and Penn State? Is there anything in the UK that's hyped to the extent that the Super Bowl or the World Series are? The UK struggles to generate the amount of stories that the US produces on a daily basis.

In fairness to Jerry, narrative in overseas sports is far less pervasive than it is in American sport. It obviously exists but it's far more conservative than in America where the hype goes up to eleven.

Black Terry/Negro Navarro vs. Trauma I/Trauma II, LUCHA POP 8/27/11 This was a fairly typical match between these workers. It was bare bones in terms of layout and structure; Navarro dominated, Terry played second fiddle, and yet it was still pretty good. When Black Terry Jr's videos first started appearing it was Trauma II who showed the most potential among Dinastía Navarro, but for the past year or so Trauma I has been beastly. I don't know if he's overtaken Trauma II, but it sure looks that way. Mind you, everyone gets relegated to secondary status when Negro Navarro is in the ring. That's what happened to Terry & Trauma II, who worked the usual "my turn/your turn" pattern. The selling was decent, but Terry's a stronger character than Navarro and I don't really like seeing him in this environment. Sure he can work holds, but his forte are those Terribles Cerebros brawls where he does his best character work. Here Terry and Trauma II spent most of their time trying to hook each other, but it's obvious who's hookin' who if you keep taking turns. Not only that, but they always manage to go too long. I don't know if I've ever seen a Terry/Trauma exchange that ended on an upbeat. Navarro vs. Trauma I was outstanding, however. They worked this tiny little story where Trauma slapped the old man, and talk about teaching your boy a lesson. Trauma did a fantastic job of screaming basically, as Navarro taught his ever-improving son that he still doesn't know squat. Trauma I vs. Navarro has tremendous potential as the younger Trauma has the size to fight back against his old man, whereas big brother would have to work from underneath and probably get mauled. Navarro eased up on his boy after the armlock and ended up giving him the bout, but the signs were there that Navarro vs. Trauma could develop into one of wrestling's better match-ups. Here's hoping they wrestle each other more often than Navarro and Terry do.

Clearly, some of you guys didn't get your free gift.

Care to expand upon this? Because I don't think this is a great match at all and I really appreciated the way you got me to rethink Psicosis/Santo and even Dandy/Casas.

Blue Panther vs. Super Astro, Mexican National Middleweight Championship, AAA 10/9/92 I've always thought this match was a disappointment and still do. The matwork in the first caida is nothing special and actually pretty weak by lucha title match standards. When you consider that it's a Blue Panther title match it's even more frustrating. Worse still is the second caida. I'm sure we've all made concessions for a weak caida in the past, but a soft fall is not what you'd expect from an oft-cited classic. I'm not against short falls by any stretch of the imagination, but a pinfall or submission shouldn't just fall into your lap. They do some good things in the third fall but it doesn't happen in rhythm with the rest of the match so it's hard to get excited about. It does salvage the match to a fair extent, but not to the point where it's a classic. Panther vs. Angel Azteca was better than this and that's hardly a classic either. When I think about what's missing from this match it's difficult to imagine what people see in it. There's none of the beauty and struggle of Panther's matwork against Atlantis or the breathtaking work of Super Astro in trios. I'm not sure what causes people to elevate this match beyond its proper station, but at least their impression is favourable. Hopefully, they use it as a gateway to the better stuff because I just don't see this as a high point in either guy's work.

Obviously, wrestlers create their narratives whereas narrative in sport is whatever's happening to the athletes, but athletes are usually aware of the narrative that frames their matches. The All Blacks, for example, were aware of New Zealand's history at Rugby World Cups prior to last year's tournament. They knew that New Zealand had been waiting 20 years to win back the Cup and that the rugby world considered them chokers. Athletes know what's being said and written about them and often use it for motivation. That's about where the comparison ends, but wrestling being a faux sport often borrows ideas from sport. It's a bit silly to argue that wrestling borrows more from Rocky than sport when Rocky is a sports movie that was supposedly inspired by Rocky Marciano and the fight between Ali and Chuck Wepner. It's also silly to claim that there's no sense of morality in sport or any soap opera stuff. There's instances of just about everything in sport as you'd well know being an English football fan. Anyway, as I said in my earlier post it's worthless making comparisons with sport or movies. Wrestling is wrestling. Somewhere out there there's probably someone who watches professional wrestling but never watches sports or movies and I'm sure they get it. It's meant to be archetypal or universal not pinching stuff from here and there.

Actually, the Piper stuff is a lot of fun. I dunno if I'd call it great but it was a strong feud with good matches. I should really watch more matches that Rude had in that period between the Warrior and Piper feuds to see whether it was a purple patch or just good chemistry with those workers.

I think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to Flair as the heel champ. The local fans wanted to see Jerry or Kerry or Tommy kick Flair's ass and part of that narrative of kicking Flair's ass was a fairly simple arc of Flair going from being cocksure ahead of the match to desperate by the end of it. Within that narrative arc it makes sense for Flair to be caught off the top and slammed to the canvas as it's a strong visual image. The fact that Wrestler Ric claims to be the best wrestler in the world is all the more reason to do it. I mean the formula was pretty simple: Flair comes into a territory, baits the local fans about how he's better than their man, local guy ends up being a tougher proposition than Flair gave him credit for, Flair gets his ass kicked and leaves humiliated but still managing to hold onto the belt somehow. Sometimes he'd tweak it a bit and sometimes he'd play it a bit more straight, but basically it went something like that. Within that context, what does it matter if he's caught off the top? The whole thrust of the match is to disprove Flair's claims of being better than anybody. What are you worried about a low percentage play for? It sounds like the type of criticism Gorilla Monsoon would make. They wouldn't exactly be local heroes if they let Flair intimidate them would they? Since when did they have to be intimidated for it to be a form of intimidation? Christ by that rationale no heel has ever cut an intimidating promo. Of course the babyface is going to stand up to it. Wil E. Coyote was a cartoon coyote who failed time and time again to catch and eat a bird. I'm pretty sure that Ric Flair managed to capture the title on one or two occasions and we were led to believe that in the 80s he ate very well. Besides, we're supposed to be sympathetic to Wil E. Coyote because the Road Runner is an annoying little shit. I don't think Ric is meant to have our sympathy. Are you trying to say that Flair never won a match by holding the tights or putting his foot on the ropes? Ric's bullshit backfiring is again a pretty obvious narrative element but it hardly makes him a dumbass bitch now does it? If that's the standard for being a dumbass bitch then his opponents were far dumber. All right, perhaps "blind panic" is the wrong choice of words, but I don't think he's meant to be thinking straight. When he does the turnbuckle flip and sprints down the apron is he meant to be thinking like the best wrestler in the world or in a state of panic? His reaction is to try to come off the top but 99% of the top he's knocked off the apron. But hey, it's a spot that tells the crowd Flair's reeling and they've all seen it a hundred times and recognise and love it. Ah c'mon, he didn't start every match bumping and selling. What have a couple of screwy finishes in Dallas got to do with Flair's character? We don't know what would have happened in each match had it gone beyond the screwy finish. The finishes are external factors and not character defining. I'm sure the Dallas fans knew that Emperor Ric had no clothes. The finishes are designed to annoy the shit out of them while providing Kerry the moral victory. Sure, the plot changes but the story stays the same. I don't think I've argued that Flair matches are isolated events. The argument is about whether Flair matches show him to be a dumbass weak bitch. How is being a bitching, stooging heel a movie analogy? It's an archetype and existed long before there was ever wrestling or movies. There's a huge and obvious difference between when Flair would trick an opponent by stooging and the stooging late in the match where he's reeling. Are you honestly trying to say that Ric Flair never panicked in a match? I guess you missed that et cetera there. Considering that Wrestler Ric almost lost the title on a nightly basis in city after city you'd have to say he was a choker. He may have managed to escape with the title but it was a far cry from what he claimed he'd do. What is there to defend? There's no need to defend anything if people don't make claims like Flair being a dumbass bitch. This goes against your definition of psychology being the why and the thought process behind what the wrestlers do. Now you're saying it's just stuff. There's no reason to be so noncommittal. I know you're reluctant to give wrestlers too much credit in case you overstep the mark of how much you think wrestlers think about wrestling, but if Ric Flair could articulate in promo after promo a basic narrative for his character/match I think we can take for granted that he had some idea what his stuff meant. Then again, who cares whether Flair could put a name to it? What does it matter if he doesn't think in terms of desperation if he's acting desperate? We've already covered wrestling's lack of storytelling depth. The things Ric did in the ring weren't complicated. You just said that Flair isn't a deep enough thinker to dream things up and that it's just stuff to him. Now you're saying he had a fine sense of drama.

Sean Mooney or Todd Pettengill?

TITO SANTANA VS. THE WORLD #27 -- "Ravishing" Rick Rude I talked about their 1988 match in the Most Consistent, Most Hit and Miss thread that was the catalyst for this mini project. Their 2/89 match is a more drawn out houseshow version of the match minus the hot finish. It's an okay match but nothing special. Didn't see the correlation between the Tito match and the Warrior carry. I'm not convinced that Rude was really that great against anybody else but Warrior in the WWF. TITO SANTANA VS. THE WORLD #28 -- The Red Rooster/"Terrific" Terry Taylor The first match was the Rooster's face turn from SNME after Bobby slapped him. Fun little match and a great angle. One thing I'll give the WWF credit for from this era was their ability to turn people heel or face. Their execution of character turns was generally outstanding. Taylor's not one of my favourites and had all the charisma of a plank of wood, but Bobby was so good at what he did that even the Rooster's turn was enthralling. Bobby's range was amazing when you think about it. The second match is from '92 and part of some WWF grudge match tape. Didn't know that El Matador and Terry Taylor had a grudge in '92? Neither did Sean Mooney but he sure tried to explain it. TITO SANTANA VS. THE WORLD #29 -- "Dr. D" David Schultz Couple of short matches. Exactly what you'd expect from Schultz. Can't really recommend them in good faith, but they weren't bad. TITO SANTANA VS. THE WORLD #30 -- Jerry "The King" Lawler This was pretty much the Jerry Lawler Show with Tito along for the ride. It's a fun match if you'd into Jerry working the crowd, but a meaningless match Tito wise.

I think we all understand the spots. We just disagree that the psychology is Flair being a dumbass bitch.

Wrestling has always been like a cousin to sports. It may be the blacksheep of the family or the cousin you don't tell the girlfriend's family about when you ask for her hand in marriage, but wrestling and sports elicit the same emotions in folks. Yes, wrestling borrows narrative elements from film and television but as a direct comparison with film and television it's a complete failure. Wrestling is far closer to the narrative element found in real sports than it is to film and television, and if you don't believe there's a narrative element in real sports take a look at this -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcdUn34PnmU I don't know about you, but I'm excited. Sport is all about human drama and the way we express that drama is through narrative. As sports fans we all have our favourite teams or athletes and teams we hate and we all go through the full gamut of emotions from joy to despair. Wrestling feeds off those emotions and is able to control and manipulate them. I think you'll find that wrestling is closer to sporting themes than film and television themes as wrestling simply cannot express the majority of things that film and television does. Wrestling does morality well and in particular the theme of justice and injustice, but ultimately it has to convey a theme that can be expressed through violence or physical action and that's extremely limiting compared to what a film or television writer can do. On the other hand, there are a lot of soap opera aspects to pro-wrestling and we shouldn't ignore them just because they're not enjoyable even on a B-film level. The idea that wrestling is like sports is legitimate in my view, but it's also an ideal that a lot of us want to see happen. We've already established that wrestling falls short of the mark on most occasions and that the majority of matches are a failure from a narrative aspects so I honestly think that wrestling should be argued for on its own merits and not by making comparions to film, television and sports. The question people should really be asking themeselves is "was this a good match compared to the thousands of other pro-wrestling matches I've seen?"