El-P

I'm all for a "Tenryu was awesome" trend. I always thought Tenryu was way underrated and that he was clearly one of the greatest workers ever, with an amazing longevity and diversity. I never understood why he was not considered a great worker for so long. He never was a great mechanic, but he had so many other great things in his work.

I agree.

Not to go off in a tangeant, but did you enjoy Malenko in ECW ?

Is there anyone else out there with the same rep that Stevens has, but of whom there isn't much footage either ?

Of course. I was only replying to this :

I'll deflate the whole thing because we're both too old and quotations kill me too. I agree with all of this. We both agree that UWF-i's booking sucked. I dunno. My only point was about the so-called "realism", or lack thereof, of Takada, and shoot-style as a whole. Well, I disagree, but we'll save it for another day when I'll had rewatched old Nobuhiko. It's often a mistake though. More and more I try to know nothing or the bare minimum about the movie I'm going to watch anyway. Sometimes I do have high expectations if the director is someone I really like a lot, but I try to keep them vague most of the time. The less expectations I have, the most open my mind is. Now, it doesn't mean I'll enjoy the movie, but I try not to have any specific expectations about what I watch. Well, sometime they know exactly what the audience expect, and they give it to them, and it works. And most of the time, those movies are shitty because it's all about the lowest common denominator. The widest common expectations. I agree UWF-i run into tons of problem, but I don't think Takada's "lack of realism" was one of them. Choshu killed them dead, but their fate had been sealed even before the NJ deal I believe, and Anjoh's goofball attitude didn't help. You misundertood what I meant by "gimmick". I repeat, I never said Fujiwara's ability or Tamura's ability was a gimmick. I never even compared the merits of each workers Dan. I only said judging Takada on whether he was "realistic" or not wasn't a valid opinion to me. I said many times that I should watch some Takada back and see how it holds up with me. I never said I haven't watched any Fujiwara in years though. Well, I don't understand how he was more realistic. Tamura was more realistic. Khosaka was more realistic. But Fuji ? I don't see it. Anyway... I remember an excellent match he had with Tamura. But anyway, UWF-i booking sucked, I agree with that. They were never able nor willing to push the natives beyond Takada. Yamazaki, Sano and Tamura deserved better. The style in itself, I had no problem with it. Undercard matches with Tamura, Sano, Yamazaki, Kakihara, Sakuraba, Anjoh, those gaijins whose names I forgot, Takada's epic battle on top, goofy pro-style gaijins like Tenta and Severn showing up. Lot to love in UWF-i. I guess, but it's a criticism I don't get. Indeed, and that was my whole point, so I suggest we give it a rest. I said it about a thousand times, I'm not even arguing about that because I haven't watched Takada in ages. The whole thing was the "realism" point which to me sounds kinda ridiculous. Yep. I wonder why matwork became important. I wonder if it has anything to do with Benoit or if it's just a reaction against most of the dominant highspots late 90's styles. I'll check it out. I love Elephant. Very important movie to me.

They do.

Several boards which have long gone now, DVDVR, tOA, and private discussions with the Quebrada bunch. As soon as I got online, the four names I learned who were pimped as these awesome wrestlers were Liger (which I knew because I had access to some NJ earlier in the decade), Misawa, Kawada and Jumbo.

I guess Lawler got forgotten in the 90's then, and his WWF years when he became a joke in the ring surely didn't help. The fact that territory footage was both not the most popular thing and not the easiest thing to get your hand on back then contribued to bury him in the ashes of wrestling history while Flair still being active and on the forefront of major national company kept him in the public eye. I think the fact Lawler was never bigger than a territorial star (and one that would travel to boot) didn't help his case either. I warmed up to Lawler although I'm not sure where I would put him against the other great US workers. The über punching makes him a bit tricky though, I have to be in the right mood to watch him. That said, people who watched wrestling the way we do in the 80's also thought Ted DiBiase was this awesome worker and Bruiser Brody was this great brawler.

The Jumbo as GOAT candidate talk did not start until the 99-00 era IRRC. I know for a fact that was not a prevalent viewpoint when I first started posting online. In fact I know of no one who made this argument when I first started to get really into the newsletter/online thing in 95-96. I don't know where you got that impression. From what I remember, Jumbo was already considered one of the greatest worker ever when I first stumble onto internet wrestling community. That was in early 98. And it was not a new thing from what I understood. From day one I always got the feel that Jumbo was accepted as being the Man, whomever I talked to, which prompted me to get the most famous Jumbo matches from the early 90's and late 80's right off the bat. I guess it just got confirmed as more footage from the 80's showed up, but to say Jumbo was not pimped as a GOAT before 99-00 just sounds wrong to me.

Really ? Dave would love that one. I have another question. What if Sakuraba had lost these fights ?

You're way snarkier than I am Dylan. I refrained myself from asking Dan if Sakuraba was a GOAT candidate due to his "work" (read : MMA fights) in PRIDE since he was a good "pure shoot-style" midcarder in UWF-i.

It could have been worst. It could have been, "Depsite UFC being hot, pro-wrestling isn't".

Make that "all of sports entertainment". Abby's WWE carrer is even more impressive : -

I remember UWI-i drawing shitloads of money then getting into big problems, but I don't remember the reasons why. I doubt Takada was the reason, he was a huge draw until the end of his career. He drew huge in New Japan and he drew huge to launch PRIDE, despite having been "exposed" as a pro-wrestler for years and doing really bad worked shoots camouflaged as real shoots in PRIDE. I don't think it is. I brought up this because you imply that shoot-style was something different than pro-style, sold on the basis that it looked real. So, I guess the audience was different too and was expecting "realistic stuff" out of any shoot-style promotion, right ? So, if that's the case, why did they made Takada the biggest shoot-style worker ever ? I know very well that Yamazaki, Tamura, Khosaka and Han are better pure shoot-style workers than Takada, I've never had any doubt about it. But that never bothered me. Takada was more pro-style at heart, so what ? Well, it's a mistake. You can judge a movie on its own merit, but not on what you expect it to be. It makes no sense to me. I agree. I guess. I don't remember how things got bad to be honest. But Takada had been a big draw for years at this point. You can't have it both way, you can't say "what the japanese audience thought has nothing to do with what wer're discussing" and at the same time point out that "they ended up bankrupt". Either it is relevant, either it's not. You think people really bought that ? And anyway, even though it was sold on realism, didn't Takada drew huge against pro-wrestler Vader ? Did the people really thought that was a legit fight ? That's whY i said it was a gimmick. And although I agree they strayed a little too far, if there's a guy to blame, wouldn't that be Anjoh making stupid challenges to the Gracie and getting humiliated. Wasn't Anjo a booker along with Nakano ? I know. Tamura did the best thing for his career. He had a niche audience and he protected his style by not mixing with NJ and going to RINGS. But then we're talking about business here, and I thought that wasn't relevant ? To me the "realistic" aspect of UWF was always a gimmick like any other to make money with a niche audience. UWF-i blew it at some point, I don't remember how that happens, it's old history at this point. But really, the only guy that kept his aura was Takada. Despite working the shittiest match ever with Mutoh at the dome, he still drew huge against Hashimoto for the next Dome Show. Again, we're talking about business here. Tamura made a good business decision for himself, Takada did a good business decision for himself. The talk of the days back then was all about Takada showing up in AJ to boost attendance. Although I agree UWF-i lost their way, I'm not ready to buy it was because Nobuhiko Takada wasn't working "realistic enough". That's not even the point. The point is, Fujiwara also did lot of goofy pro-wrestling stuff, and his matwork, as great and fun as it was, wasn't "realistic". I can buy that Fujiwara was a great shoot-style worker (and I'm talking by my standart), and there's no doubt he was better on the mat than most. But it's not an issue of realism at all. That's why I say if your issue with Takada is "realism", then you should have the same issue with Fuji or Volk Han (who I adore). You don't want to know, I assure you. Thats' where we disagree. To me I don't see how any of these matches should be judge as far as realism go. These are two wrestling match worked in the realm of one style we call "shoot-style" because it's supposed to look more "real" than other form of wrestling. One is more about technical wiz, the other is about drama and flash. That's all there is to me What can I say. I loved both, although my preference goes to Tamura vs Han. Maybe on rewatch I would hate Takada vs Vader. I doubt I would quite frankly. My favourite pro-wrestling match ever, the most beautiful I've seen, is the infamous Tamura vs Khosaka 30 minute draw. That's it, that's my favourite 30 minutes of men's wrestling I ever seen in my 21 years watching wrestling. Does that keep me from thinking Takada vs Vader was great ? No. Go figure. Blame Nakano. Blame Nakano for not pushing Yamazaki either. Tamura had some great matches in UWF-i too. And it was only logical he would blossom in RINGS because he peaked there and was put in situations to have great matches with great opponents. in UWF-i, not so much. UWF-i should have pushed Tamura as the heir to Takada's throne of course. I never said UWF-i's booking was good. Oh, so Fujiwara and Volk Han were realistic but had a sense of humour. Ok. Tamura and Kohsaka never struck me by being overty funny though. That I won't get into since like I said I haven't watched the guy in 10 years and that wasn't my point. I know how Takada is viewed these days. Well, I guess. Doesn't mean it makes sense. You're losing me here by bringing up WWE again. Again, makes no sense to me whatsoever. Hum, Dan, I never said anything about his ability, but you seem to have this obsession with realism which makes you think everytime I say Fujiwara was not that realistic is a knock on him. Hear me out : I don't care about *realism* in pro-wrestling. And since shoot-style to me is just another form of pro-wrestling, I don't care about *realism* in shoot-style either. I'm well aware of Fujiwara's abilities. Well, you do it too by bringing up WWE's production into the argument. Ok, and that's your upmost right. I've been a shoot-style fan since 1998, I loved the Tamura vs Han and Tamura vs Khosaka matches I've seen, some of my best time watching wrestling, but not once it has crossed my mind that I was watching for something specific in these. To me it was just the most beautiful style of pro-wrestling I saw, and that was it. I don't know what other people expect from it. Come on Dan... Technical ability, kicking ability of that's your stuff (Tamura wasn't a kicker, but he still ruled), matwork, smootness, creating excitement with submissions, building dramatic escapes, selling KO, selling submissions etc... The fact that MMA may be not totally legitimate is like boxing. But it's called fixing, not working, and it's cheating the audience. Not exactly the same thing unless you wnat to argue that it was exactly what pro-wrestling used to be at first. Well, if your argument is that Takada sucked on the mat, I can hear that, and since I haven't watched his matches for so long, I won't argue at this point, plus I have no desire to. That said, you can suck on the mat and be a good kicker, good at building to exciting knock downs or knock out etc etc... Tamura was pretty mich strictly a mat technician as far as offense goes, I don't remember him kicking that much, and kicking is a big part of shoot-style. I guess that's why Jerry Lawler is pimped as one of the best ever. Ok, that one was snarky. I didn't intend to compare Takada and Fujiwara there. My issue was with the "realism" argument. And quite frankly, I'm amused that it may be an argument to pimp Fujiwara over Takada when both as pretty unrealistic to begin with. Hey, I'm too old for these long posts.

Yeah, that may be why Cena overcompensates. A lot of the guys who were pushed mainly due to physique (like Warrior, Brock and Batista) seem to have that insecurity. Probably because they are aware they could be big with gay audience. Hell if I was gay I would totally dig John Cena's physique. And don't get me started me with Demolition or the Andersons.

Cena does look like a gay porn actor though. Really, he would score big time in Le Marais in Paris.

This is not the point. WWE doesn't pretend to sell anything else but WWE wrestling. You seem to have a problem with UWF-i selling "shoot-style" wrestling, under the guise of realism which was supposed to be the roots of "shoot-style", while having a guy not realistic enough (or not good enough to be realistic) as their top star. You seem to imply it should be a problem to the viewers, yet, the native audience of the second UWF and UWF-i apparently had no "realism" issue with the product that were sold to them as "realistic", nor with Takada's style obviously. So, for whom it is an issue really, except people like you who have decided that Takada wasn't "realistic enough" ? It's like criticizing a movie for not delivering what *you* expect, even though it was not the point of the movie to begin with. I point to the fact that it did great business because it contradict your point that Takada's lack of realism was a problem in a promotion that was supposedly sold as "real". It wasn't an issue at all because UWF-i was just another style of pro-wrestling, period. Takada's "lack of realism" is just a bullshit line to me, especially coming from someone who pimp Fujiwara, who's about as pro-wrestling as anyone I've ever watched, as one the greatest shoot-style worker ever. Let's not have double standarts here. You can criticize Takada as much as you want to, but the "lack of realism" just doesn't cut it in any way shape or form. This doesn't make any sense, sorry. What is a "faux" (en français dans le texte) work shoot ? It's a work to begin with ! How can it be "faux". This is entirely a matter of aesthetic at this point, but if we talk about aesthetic, it opens a huge can of worms. And really, are there some "faux" brawling matches too ? Some "faux" barb wire matches were the guys don't bleed enough ? Come on. I get the feeling of "purity of style" here, and we're getting closer and closer to Mike Oles's old "wrestling as figure skating" argument. I'm sorry, but Takada vs Vader sure didn't look like Tamura vs Volk Han, but both were awesome *pro-wrestling* matches, and that's about where I draw the line. In what way RINGS or PWFG were more *serious* ? Some would say that PWFG was dull. RINGS had shitloads of just terrible shitty matches with godawful martial artist who couldn't work a lick, matches looking like contrived work-exposing turds, and you had to wait for Han, Yamamoto and Tamura to work against each other to get that pearl in a middle of terrible comically bad matches. RINGS card were a chore to sit through most of the time, especially before Tamura joigned. And the idea that Fujiwara is more *serious* than Takada is funny in itself. Again, shitloads of goofy headbutts and maneurism. He was working shoot-style. Now you can argue as much as you want why you think he wasn't a very good worker, but the "realistic" argument just has no place anywhere. I love the "It wasn't comletely realistic". No, indeed. Really a drunk Sandman smashing a bamboo cane on someone's head is more realistic in a real fight setting than Fujiwara's funky submissions (don't get me wrong here, I love Fuji's funky submissions) and goofy headbutts (which are as goofy as anything else I've seen in pro-wrestling). Fujiwara worked what we call "shoot-style". He didn't look much more realistic than Takada or Maeda to me. Like Takada, like Han, like Gary Allbright. You would admit neither of these guys work the same way, but that they work in the realm of one style that is more "realistic", quotations marks matter here, than your average modern US or Japan style. Again with the aesthetic argument, and that's where you open a huge can of worms. Because the words "aesthetic" and "these guy took this shit seriously" brings pictures of ROH matches with people chanting "this is awesome" at some moves exhibition, which can also be considered an aesthetic without selling nor drama. So, are we saying here that since it's all about aesthetic and the workers taking this shit seriously, the spot monkeys of the 2000 have created a new style that is worth digging into ? I can see how some people would be lost in shoot-style, I never got that much lucha myself, so... Still both are pro-wrestling, and I don't see how it's more a departure from traditionnal pro-wrestling than FMW was. Yes. And *your* point is ? I'm saying "realism" is not a factor of how good you are or aren't if you work shoot-style, that is all. Because "realism" just isn't a factor in pro-wrestling. Neither do I, but really, now you're implying that pro-wrestling doesn't have to be necesseraly *worked*. Which, basically, is wrong. Pro-wrestling has always been and will always be a *work*. Takada promoted PRIDE by doing worked matches in a MMA show. He did look like an idiot doing it. Well, it worked because it launched PRIDE, but Takada looked like a goof. You're not making any sense here. Tamura is part of my personnal pantheon of wrestlers. I never said his ability was a gimmick. Selling "shoot-style" as the real thing was a total gimmick. It gave birth to a new and beautiful style, which I loved, but that's all there is. There's nothing more specific to it. Most of the shoot-style workers also worked in other promotions. Fujiwara worked in FMW. Yamazaki and Takada worked in New Japan. Naoki Sano used to work NJ junior, then worked heavy in NOAH with a his "UWF shoot-style" gimmick. Tamura obviously wasn't interested, that's why he choosed to not take part in NJ's feud with UFW-i, which allowed him to keep his pure shoot-style aura intact and become RINGS new native star instead of a NJ mid-carder. I love his matches with Han and Khosaka to death. But really, I couldn't give a flying fuck if those matches really look "realistic" or not. This is not the point. The point is to have great *pro-wrestling* matches. I don't love those match because I find them "more realistic". Hell, most real fight bore me to death, so if you would really want to do a realistic worked shoot, it would be a chore for me to watch. Hell, who in the hell could find Volk Han "realistic" ? Let's be serious, Volk Han is flashy as hell, he sells shots to the gut like Steamboat and does crazy submission shit like Regal, all in the realm of his own style, but still. I know you think Takada is no good, but the argument that he was no good because he wasn't "realistic" enough just doesn't make any sense to me. Because if we're going that route, then Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Volk Han must be some shitty shoot-style worker too in their own way.

Since Takada became arguably the biggest draw in the 90's in Japan, either UWF-i fans were satisfied with the believability of Takada as the big star of their "worked shoot" promotion, either they didn't care about realism that much to begin with and had no problem with Takada not being "realistic" enough. No, these are not valid reasons for criticising Takada at all. UWF-i was pro-wrestling, period. It's like criticizing some mexican guy because is style is not lucha libre enough and does too much american style pro-wrestling spots are psychology while working in Mexico. If it works, that's all that matters. And Takada's style worked in spades, and drew shitload of money to boot. So, whatever the claim of the UWF and UWF-i being "realistic", their fan embraced Takada and didn't see any problem wih his "lack of realism". You really think Fujiwara is realistic ? Goofy headbeat galore. Nah... Shoot-style is just another form of pro-wrestling, like garbage wrestling, lucha, european. Who was working in the first UWF ? Tiger Mask, who was doing moonsaults in the mids of "realistic" matches. Hell, they all did tons of traditionnal pro-wrestling moves in the first UWF, dropkicks etc... Second UWF had matches with Backlund. UWF-i had Vader, Dan Severn, the Iron Sheik, Bad News Brown, they worked in NJ and WAR. Hell Dan, you're the one telling me that PRIDE was the best pro-wrestling promotion in the 2000. PRIDE. So, if PRIDE was "just another form of pro-wrestling", the entirely worked UWF-i certainly was as pro-wrestling as Jerry lawler working Bill Dundee, Abby working Terry Funk or Sabu working the Sandman. Just a stylistic difference, that's pretty much all there was. "Realism" was a gimmick. Some worked the gimmick feel speed (Tamura, Yamazaki), some didn't (Anjoh, Takada).

I wouldn't call Hokuto and Kandori exchanging a few shoot punches once masturbatory. I would call most of Foley's bullshit about getting potatoed by Vader or talking 10 unprotected chair shots to the head by Shane Douglas and redoing it with the Rock in front of a bigger audience (and his family) masturbatory and stupid. Lioness Asuka vs Yumiko Hotta "shoot" match was a total masturbatory match. If you don't know how to make a shoot-style match look good without killing yourself and shoot-punching each other in the face, it doesn't mean you are tough and ballsy, it means you suck and are stupid. Low-Ki kicking people as hard as he can because he's a mark for japanese yough style is masturbatory. A great quote about from Rick Martel about Booker T (a notorious "dangerous" worker) "You need to convince the audience, you don't need to convinve me !". He talked about how Meng and the Barbarian who are two of legit toughest guy ever in the business being light as a feather in the ring, to the point you wouldn't feel them if they didn't want you to but still made things look great. This is also a criteria totally foreign to us when we judge workers, but a criteria that matters a lot to the actual workers. It's interesting to hear that Koji Kanemoto is considered one of the best worker in Japan by everyone because the guy, despite doing stiff kicks, is *safe as hell* apparently. Should that criteria be used also when discussing the greatest workers ?

`So basically John Cena is the new Roddy Piper.

Hokuto was pretty much a great worker as a Marine Wolf already.

Wasn't around for half a year though in 98.

Yep, he fucked up his back in late 89 I believe. He was never the same afterward.

I mentionned Fujinami. He was tremendous in the 80's, so if you've seen mostly that part of his career, lately, I understand you would put him that high, Fuji was as good as anyone then. Rey, I guess I'll have to really dig deep into his WWE career to give an accurate opinion, and that's something I'm really not willing to do based on the scattered vision I had of some of his big matches there. The issue I have with Rey to begin with, is that rewatching his matches in ECW and lots of WCW, I find myself not that involved with Rey overall. Kinda like some of the NJ juniors, I think some of his work hasn't aged that well. Granted, he was better in AAA anyway, and that is something I would need to see more too, but outside of a few great matches in WCW, basically I'm not blown away by Rey Rey's work retrospectively. And since I've been less than enthousiastic about the big WWE matches in which he worked that toned down and quite frankly annoying style based around a goofy spot, I really would not consider Rey as one of the greatest wrestler ever. It's bizarre, it's like at the same time I wasn't sold at all on the "Rey is better in the WWE because he's a great storyteller" argument, I found myself not being blown away anymore by most of his earlier matches either. I still like Rey, I still think he had some great matches with Eddie and Juventud, but I would say he's a guy who's stock has dropped a bit in my book overall, and not all of it because of his WWE career which I just don't care for. So, yeah, my answer would be no, but not for the most obvious reason.