Matt D

What about Jeff Jarrett & Robert Fuller vs The Moondogs, USWA 01/17/92

I know we lack MSC footage in the early 90s, but there's not a memphis match that made tape better than Jarrett vs Shawn?

There's an 80s AWA comp you should buy. Go talk to Will.

I like how they set up the Power and Glory vs LOD feud here.

Henry does the small things so well. He knows exactly when to give and how much. He knows when to jaw with the fans, with the ref. He knows when to sell and when to shrug off. He knows when to grind down on an opponent and when to let up for a hope spot. And everything he does looks huge and impactful. He'll bump huge when he needs to. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone work big better than him.

Unsurprisingly given this write up, I love the Bossman vs Earthquake series, with the Royal Albert Hall match one of my absolute favorites of 91 WWF.

I call threads notes because... i'm not sure. i guess that's how we did things in the late 90s or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZLu6OAzmQ I thought this was actually a pretty good post-Rumble promo from him too.

The ONLY thing I liked about it was the look on Rock's face when he demanded it not end that way.

Hey, how many Bossman matches have you seen recently? Especially matches that aren't just PPVs and SNMEs and even CVs. I think this is one thing you're not entirely with us on too. So many big changes in traditional mindsets when it comes to WWF (and Crockett, but especially WWF) came with the releases/rereleases/easier availability of MSG/Boston Garden/Philly Spectrum/Toronto/Houston footage. That's what changed the mindset. Seeing a lot more house show matches without some of the usual WWF limitations. I know that doesn't help your specific argument, but I'm curious. You're talking form and I'm talking footage. Past that Rumble match, most of the higher end Bossman matches I can think of are either from televised house shows.

Like I said, past MAYBE the Steiners vs Money Inc in a Cage (quality of that match aside), I've never seen a Dibiase in WWF match pimped more online than Barbarian vs Bossman. As for the spurious Demolition remark, I am not going to invite headache upon myself, thank you very much.

Welcome to the Microscope Match of the Week. This note serves two purposes. I think for this week the second is more important than the first. The first is to discuss the Ron Garvin vs Big Bubba match from Starrcade 86. It's a contentious match on the board namely because Dylan touts it and Will completely and utterly decries it. I understand that not everyone has immediate access to the match so I hope at least we can have Will (or any other detractor) list what elements/specifics they think are faulty in the match and then someone will try to counter that argument. Or vice versa. That said, I have a feeling this week will not be the indication of the success or failure of this endeavor. The second is as a call for picks. The plan now is that I'll put up a new note every Sunday and we'll discuss one way or another for a week. I know I intend not to do my usual headache-inducing train of thought pbps but to pick out specific elements of the match that I think are interesting and discuss them, and I'd suggest people do the same. I don't have a lot of doubt that we can manage interesting conversation on non-conventional lines. When making a pick, I do have one suggestion: Pick something that people will have seen or will be able to see. No, we are not going to give out youtube links. This isn't going behind a password wall. People can find things on their own, but you will get significantly more discussion about your match if you select something either from the thousands of matches available online (it's easy to check first), from a PPV/TV Show that people have recently likely watched or that is getting a lot of attention, from something like an 80s set (or Yearbook) that a large number of people have purchased, or of a match that may or may not be available online but that most of us have seen (something like the Tully vs Magnum - I Quit match), though that last one might not be quite as interesting unless it's a particularly contentious match. Now, if this goes well over the first month or two, maybe we can get ahead on creating a list by 26 weeks, and a reasonable comp can be made and purchased for people who want to get in on the discussion for the season. Something like that. We'll see. For now, I'll take suggestions/picks in post order, though I have the liberty of shuffling things up if we have four Mid-South matches in a row, or something. I'm happy maintaining a list of upcoming matches and starting notes. In my mind, anything is game. Joshi. Lucha. Indy. WoS. 1950s black and white. You name it. Just remember: if people can't access it easily or if it's a 92 minute chore to sit through, there's a good chance they can't or won't discuss it. That's just common sense. Stack the deck in your favor.

I'm glad to start a note, and even be in charge of managing suggestions and an order that people get to pick matches for everyone to watch, etc, but there's a slight problem with this as a starting point. Well two. First is that PWO Microscope Match of the Week is a kind of lackluster name. More importantly though, presuming this is the Starrcade 86 Match, the thing doesn't fit the "easily accessible" criteria. It's not online. I can still start a note, but that'll sort of hinder rewatches.

Man, you love everything. You are a joy.

Where was he in 85?

I'll watch it too. We should have a match of the week club here! Like a book club. Where we all watch an easily accessible match and discuss it!

Jericho being out there so long was impressive. I know you can rest at times in the Rumble but still. Maybe he needs superior lung power for Fozzy.

I can live with that concession. I'm not saying that post-peak is more important than peak, just that when comparing two wrestlers, it's a factor. Certainly, not the most important one. We're good. Let's shut up and watch the Rumble.

No. I'm not conceding that. If one wrestler does something better than another, as in one has a better post peak because of things that that wrestler does, then that is not just a positive one, but it factors in when comparing the two. It's not just "X does this well" It is "X did this better than Y." If you are comparing two wrestlers, you are comparing two wrestlers and I don't know why in the world you wouldn't factor that in. I have no idea how late Flair compares to late funk right now. I haven't seen enough of it. Or how Late Funk compares to Late Lawler. But it is a COMPARISON. You are comparing two wrestlers to figure out which of the two is the greatest of all time. If one does something better than the other then it matters and I don't see why in the world it wouldn't. They're not both fighting against the clock here or against some time in a race. We're aesthetically comparing two human beings and their bodies of work. There is a ton to learn from post-peak, just like there's a ton to learn from how a wrestler deals with certain limitations. If they can adapt. Saying "This wrestler had the best great matches at the peak of his career" is so limiting a way of saying "This is the greatest wrestler of all time." It's not even close to the same thing.

I just don't get this. Shouldn't a GOAT debate be MORE inclusive, not less?

Very briefly. We don't disqualify people because they don't have a post-peak. It's just one factor where we can't learn anything about them where we can learn in other places. It's not an end all. It's just another factor. When it comes to GOAT, the more factors we have to look at, the better, no? It's such a big argument? More data just helps so long as we look at it consistently. Of course, some people will weigh some things more than others. And to say you can't learn something about a wrestler when they are put into a limited situation is an argument I disagree with. You can learn something different. I truly believe that. Lawler took different bumps at 25 than he did at 55. What does he do instead? How does he compensate. Can he still create a compelling match? You can learn something there. And we're spending an inordinate amount of time talking about it? This board is about talking about everything. We've talked great matches through and through. This is another aspect that we haven't looked at as much. Why shouldn't we look into it? Now we're not even talking about the actual wrestlers. we're talking about talking about them, really.

We can talk about everything! That's the point. We're not figuring out who was a pretty good wrestler. We're working on THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME. There are a lot of factors. One of them, to me, is how well they were able to handle a loss of their physical acumen. Why is that important to me? Not because it hurts Flair's case. I promise you that's not why it's important to me. Cross my heart, Loss. It's important because to me, it shows how well they grasp how to put together a match with the tools they have. And that is a sign of being a good wrestler. You can disagree. That's fine. Can you at least accept that I'm not coming from some duplicitous place?

I'm interested in comparing the totality of two or three wrestlers in the name of coming up with Greatest of All Time. I think this is a factor. I think we can learn a lot from it. If Flair comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. If Funk comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. If Lawler comes out as a better candidate because of it, great. I don't know. That's the point. I don't know and I think there's a lot to learn and I think it's an interesting aspect that we can learn a lot about when it comes to a wrestler's grasp of wrestling. Please take any mention I have of Flair above as "A Wrestler" if it helps. The specific I had was what you said about Flair being less likely to have a great match as he got older. Or some of Dylan's points. Or what I've seen when it comes to late era Lawler. I haven't seen late 90s Flair matches for too long. I just think my general point stands. It's important to me at least.

If anyone argued that Flair didn't get it, I would disagree with that. Flair has plenty of good matches and good performances in the 90s. The difference is that in the 90s, it wasn't nearly as close to a sure thing that a Flair match was going to deliver. Surely you're not arguing that Flair was terrible after his best years were over. I thought the argument was just that Funk was better, not that Flair was awful. Why wasn't it nearly as close to a sure thing? If it's because he wasn't savvy enough to change his act when he couldn't deliver anymore when other wrestlers were able to manage changing their act to do just that, then it becomes a negative point relative to those other wrestlers. Also it's not necessarily that the matches were terrible. But if we're talking the Greatest of All Time here?