Matt D

How do you mean? https://books.google.com/books?id=whe0idKbGXMC&pg=PA136&dq=shawn+michaels+demolition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwippqOZ0MzVAhVGSiYKHRfpCJsQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=shawn%20michaels%20demolition&f=false The idea that they didn't give for the Rockers in that match is crazy. Heels giving too much (unearned especially) for babyfaces was the biggest problem of the 80s WWF tag team style. Demolition (Ax especially) made their opponents earn it (not unlike how Hansen is lauded for doing the same thing) but if they earned it, they sold and it mattered. Rockers came out of that match looking better than if Eadie worked it 50-50 with them. Moreover, pecking order DOES matter. Through being careful with their selling (including reacting) against the Rockers (or Rogs or Bees), when they have a match like they do at Summerslam 1988 with the Hart Foundation and suddenly put them over way bigger, even begging off from Bret, it makes them, who the Fed was pushing way harder, look like huger stars because there's built up expectations from the fans. It's just a totally backwards view of what matters and an egotistical one of how that match should have work, ironic in that he frames it as the complete opposite. Not every "great match" looks the same.

I like how excited Gotch seemed that Enzo was selling so well for him.

I really like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U5STdkX-Vs But I'm not sure if it's "OF THE 80s" material instead of just being really freaking cool.

Is the first half actually what happened?

Except for when we do GWE again next month!

I know you're like 6 months past this part now but I did just get the full episode where Bob Armstrong gets turned on in the Cage by Robert Fuller and uploaded it on my channel. I might double back to that as everything will resonate more now. All I have to say currently is that I really enjoy whenever Brad Armstrong and Tom Prichard are paired together.

Nothing exciting in Hidden Gems 3 unfortunately.

I'm not too worried there because they always do two collections.

This isn't current but this channel's been posting stuff for about two weeks and someone should take a look at it. I just don't have time. Some 90s stuff from Nueva Arena San Luis https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6KVUK9heGjBkcjfa00tqYw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0

There are three levels of this. 1.) Limb is worked over at a point in the match. When it comes time for a transition, limbwork is forgotten. It's never come back to or referenced. 2.) Limb is worked over at a point in the match. This sets up a transition somehow (for instance, babyface's back gets hurt and worked over allowing for the transition to heel offense. After a hope spot/cut off, the heel shifts to the leg because either a) the back wasn't working anymore or b> the heel's finisher targets the leg). 3.) Limb is worked over at a point in the match. Even after meaningful narrative transitions elsewhere, the limb is still remembered through subtle reactions or big narrative sweeps. All that said, it's a microcosm of a bigger issue: Everything in a match should have meaning and weight and should be reacted to. Nothing that happened in a match should be dropped, or if it should, it should be paid off and moved on and some things are easier than others to do that with. It should all be built to a bigger whole. Sometimes limbwork can be transitioned out of in a satisfying, meaningful way. A lot of times, they don;t even bother. (Note: I kind of want to type FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR FLAIR here, because you'd hope he'd do #2, but he really, really, really doesn't)

To be fair, weirder things happen every month in wrestling.

Great match which Michaels totally misunderstood.

How do you make a comeback when you were FORCED to retire in the first place? Unless he's gonna wrestle somewhere else and I don't get the sense he would want to go slum it in GFW or ROH, especially considering how unhappy he looked when he got inducted into TNA's Hall of Fame.

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/bah-gawd-its-the-rattlesnake-1797324485

This is an interesting thing to look at. I'd be most curious what you find in the way of variation (versatility) in their matches. As someone who was most tuned in when they were wrestling Goldust and the Shield and that just dips in now and again these days, it does feel like a lot of sameness from them to me.

Great show. Great matches. Great interplay. This episode has me ready to rewatch big chunks of the feud. And of course, most of all, great concern for your valued and valuable friend. You guys were Paul Boesch's Army, the Space City Irregulars. Great touch on the switch of the ending song too.

He's going to end up as Alexa Bliss' Boo Bradley.

He's 2000'Juvi?

I tend to like Beau on the area specific shows more than BtS, personally.

It was great seeing the Ladd turn for instance.

The sense I get with the reels, and I may be wrong, but I don't think I am, is that the footage is not packaged together well on them. you get different falls of matches on separate reels, interviews all packed together, start and end bumpers here and there. You don't have a coherent product which is why it wasn't presented to us by Bruce as a coherent product. They'd have to basically reconstruct the old TV show from scratch by putting a puzzle together with the pieces flipped upsidedown (and some missing). We have a Hidden Gems thing coming up in August. That will have a number of single matches presented without context. Do I think we'd get a few (5-6) of the biggest Houston matches they'd have a year in that format if WWE had the library? Absolutely. But the content on the reels is not in a format for WWE to present it to us in any other way that they'd be comfortable presenting it. The x # of matches a week format we got from NWA On Demand is absolutely the best we can hope for from anyone (though they could go back and recreate cards as more and more matches end up on the platform, yes). I know you want to see the footage. I do too, but it'd just sit if WWE had it.

There's a much higher chance we see more with Corgan than with WWE.

Re: 3/1/86 show. Solie is such a worm. I can't understate how good the territory was in March, 1986 though. Pritchard just turned heel. Ron Fuller was back wrestling. Mr. Wrestling II was in as a heel part of the Stud Stable. Nightmares were still going strong. Adrian Street had the pink belt back. The Bullet drama which should have been played out was reaching a dramatic point as the LLT stip was almost over on Bob Armstrong. Golden/(robert)Fuller were working like the world's sloppiest but most daring wrecking crew dismantling limbs and having just gotten the titles against Tommy and Johnny Rich in a way that kept the Nightmares in the mix. Stubbs was unmasked and a total jerk as the Alabama champion. All of the Armstrongs were back. Just great stuff. I've enjoyed almost everything up til now, especially some of the big angles and certain talents especially (heel Robert Fuller, Nightmares, etc), but this is the first time where it's all been working this well.

This was just briefly mentioned, but I want to go deeper on the idea that Masters vs McIntyre could be a "memorable moment." I hadn't been thinking that way but I do think it's valid in the same way that something like Jumping Bomb Angels vs Glamour Girls at the Royal Rumble or Tiger Match vs Dynamite at MSG might be. The problem is that Masters vs Mcintyre was only really lauded within a subgroup of a much more schismed fandom relative to the others, but it was a touchpoint for that year for that group. The first two were examples of what "smarks" thought wrestling COULD be packed into the morass of what the WWF currently was. There was an element of that to Masters vs McIntyre, though I think it was pushing up both against what was being pushed on top in the WWE at the time AND against what was considered to be tops critically from an insider perspective (a lot of that coming from Masters being a more traditional selling-based babyface instead of a moves based babyface just as that shift was starting to take place more and more in the mainstream),