Matt D

I need to put it here before it's too late. What I hate the most about the Beefcake turn is that Hogan won't even put his best friend, who is a guy who would never stab him in the back, in a position to draw money with him or get heat on him. Not even a guy he trusts completely and is completely dependent on him. That's how far gone he is in late 94/early 95. Beefcake doesn't get unmasked until after he already eats the legdrop. That's the single most maddening thing in wrestling history to me. Hogan beat him down, got his comeuppance, and only then does he get revealed. Sure he has the lame sleeper angle later, but its so backwards. You have Beefcake unmask after Hogan takes out ANOTHER masked guy, only to get assaulted, and he does it over Hogan's prone body. Or something like that. It's not rocket science. They picked the one way that it was absolutely assured to be heatless.

I love the Shark Attack finisher too.

I fully admit I need to see a lot more of Bock outside of AWA and Memphis. That's mainly what I've seen. I haven't exactly been rushing towards the Brody match but I need to see it at some point.

It was Todd and Dibiase for a while at the end. It's a lot easier to find 1993 footage than from the few years previous, I'll tell you that. Graham's site doesn't even have results for a lot of those years. http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/allamerican.htm There are a bunch of fun matches in 93: Bigelow vs Backlund, the surreal 2/3 falls match between Tatanka and the Steiners and Doink and Money Inc, 123 Kid vs Martel and Marty vs Martel. A Super random Marty vs Pat Tanaka match. There's probably a ton of goofy Heenan/Lord Alfred footage from 92 too. There is apparently a Razor Ramon vs Gary Jackson match that was both on the 9/12 Superstars and the 9/13 All American, so there seems to be more original content in 93 than 92 but this is all guess work. If there's a better list out there I don't know about someone like me. Apparently there's a Taker vs Shane Douglas match from the 2/3/91 All American that was taped at a Wrestling Challenge taping. It's listed on Graham's site from the 1/8 Wrestling Challenge taping, but not as part of the All American taping. I don't see it aired anywhere else. There aren't a lot of obvious choices for All American matches that didn't air elsewhere on the next few Challenge tapings though. I did see a Koko vs IRS match for Wrestling Spotlight, though. What the hell was that? And at some point in Feb 92 apparently The Natural Disasters & The Nasty Boys vs. The New Foundation/Sgt. Slaugther/Jim Duggan was aired. Anyone ever see this? The idea of Owen teaming with Slaughter is surreal to me.

We have the match from Barcelona already on Bret's first DVD. I have not seen the Milan match but I would be surprised if it is worked differently than the one from Barcelona or KOTR. I would have included the HV match with Luger from 5/25 or the HV title defense against Bam Bam from 3/8 (if they really wanted to get a match against Bigelow). The KOTR and Barcelona matches are wildly different but I do get your point. Instead of the Luger match I'd include the handheld of Luger/Ramon vs Perfect/Hart. Can't they seize that stuff as their own?

So on the October 4, 93 Raw, the one with the Battle Royal to set up Martel vs Razor for the IC belt, they have a Heavenly Bodies squash and Heenan, while sitting next to Vince on commentary, announces he'll have the RnRs on All American (his show) this weekend, and that they were the number one tag team of the 1980s. And Vince doesn't contest it but instead seems terribly impressed. Very surreal thing to hear on WWF tv.

The way they introduced Bam Bam really wasn't that bad, to be honest.

I badly want to see that Harts vs Money Inc match.

WWF was so regimented at this point. It's hugely different from 91-92 WCW where you'd get a random six man on almost every show. It's not at all like today where over the course of one year every wrestler will pretty much wrestle or team with every other wrestler at some point. The house show programs would go four or five months without much variation. You might get an occasional oddball PTW match, yes, but there was just one or two of those a week. I loved old Survivor Series because you got to see guys interact with each other who normally didn't, on both sides of the ring. Dibiase/Hart is a great example, but seeing Honky stand next to Dibiase is just as fun in some ways, especially in the promos leading up to things.

I think every Survivor Series should have something like this, and the Ultimate Survivors get a title shot at the Rumble or something. As a kid, this immediately made me think Tito was a big deal.

I spent a number of years jumping from pimped match to pimped match, and it's so much more satisfying to me now to watch whole years in context. I've gone through the 90s for WWF revisiting some of my youth and then moving on to stuff after I stopped watching in 92-93 and I think I enjoy Luna Vachon on Face to Face and Heenan calling Steiners squashes as much as I like watching the really top matches of the year. Watching a whole season of mid-south or Memphis with all the matches we have available in the middle is just a better experience to me than watching match after match, no matter how good they are.

I mean.. Aren't we ALL Thinking that?

What we need is the Event Center

I know I've gotten away from MOVEZ as I've gotten older and what not. But whenever I see something I've never seen before in an old match, I get excited. It could be a reversal like that crazy rotating counter out of a headscissors that Zangiev did vs Hashimoto or Bockwinkel berating Martel for boring the Winnipeg crowd during a hold to counter boring chants, or something on completely the other end of the spectrum like watching 91 Zenk trying desperately (and wretchedly/brilliantly) to fight off a rampaging Cactus Jack with a bunch of rope-assisted leg and body kicks. So yeah. I love when I'm honestly surprised by something I wasn't expecting. One of my favorite moments watching wrestling over the last few years was seeing tully actually hit an axehandle on a prone opponent instead of eating a foot. Also, there's only a finite amount of stuff I've seen so I love when I find out there's a match I never realized happen, like some of the random 80s PR Rick Martel matches or what not. That's more what makes me excited than what keeps me me interested, mind you. I think what keeps me interesting the most right now is when I see a wrestler doing something I really want him to do, something that shows me he gets it the way I want him to get it. I get really excited seeing a wrestler sell once they get back on offense or when I see a call back spot from earlier in the match that plays into a larger story but also makes sense and is clever in an organic way. Actually I have something more primal than all that and I'll get to it later.

Maybe my personal favorite is my personal favorite because he's my best? I don't hold a huge emotional attachment when the bell rings, especially when watching something where I know the outcome coming in. It's one of my weaknesses as a viewer and probably why I like structure so much, because I jump straight to the analysis. I sure do like watching what I objectively think is good wrestling though.

You're still defining what the "objective best wrestler" means and someone else might think it means something else.

FWIW, in the Aug 9 1993 Observer Newsletter, the lead story is: "After much discussion and speculation over the past week, World Championship Wrestling has reverted back to a booking committee composed of those already involved on the previous booking team (Dusty Rhodes, Ole Anderson, Eric Bischoff, Greg Gagne, Mike Graham, etc.). It appears the final decision-making power rests with Bischoff, who seems to be the most influential individual in the WCW organization since Bill Shaw is crediting the Disney tapings as a major success and Bischoff is getting the lion's share of credit for the shows. Both Terry Funk and Jerry Jarrett were spoken with by Shaw and/or Bob Dhue over the past few weeks about a spot in the organization, but to the best of my knowledge, neither were actually given a firm offer of a specific spot. Among many things, Funk felt coming in with Bischoff having the final decision-making power wasn't an environment he wanted to be part of."

Objectively, the only thing that I am sure of is that you people don't know what the word objective means.

Also, I am totally going to watch those matches all in a row sometime in the next six months and do my annoying long pbp style write up on them and break things down in a comparative way. I'm just not ready yet. The point is that I'm not seeing the ability to separate who you would rather watch from who is better. Do you acknowledge that those are completely different things? My favorite wrestlers to watch right now are El Dandy, Dirty White Boy, Buddy Landell, Billy Joe Travis and Bobby Eaton? I could point to individual things in each of their performances that I think outshine Flair's performance in similar situations. It is perfectly fine that we view wrestling in different ways. Yours works for you, and I support that. We all have our favorites. I just wish there was an attempt at objectivity. When I'm debating who is better, I'm going to downplay my personal preferences and try to be fair. Is that wrong? Do you disagree with that? How do I decide what should be objective? I don't agree that great matches are the end all. If I back up and say that it is, because a majority of people say that, then, maybe I can agree that Flair has the most great matches relative to what we have available? Some sort of ratio like that. But I don't think we can sum up my feelings on that as just personal preference. Just what I like. It isn't just what I like but what I honestly think is the best way to figure out who is the BEST. The qualities I believe makes someone the best wrestler. So we can't reach an agreed level of objectivity, you and I, because I have a different way of not just seeing wrestling than you but judging it. The best I can do is see your point of view, and the best we can do is have a vote. Flair's winning 2 to 1. That means he has a majority. It does not mean he has a consensus. If you re-did the poll saying "Who has the most great matches?" Or "On average to his total body of work, who has the most great matches?" Then maybe you'd get an answer you'd find more objective. To me, though, it wouldn't better answer the question of Who is Better?

Seriously, go out into the wild for a while. Mention John Cena. Then Mention Mark Henry. See what happens.

The point is that the things you feel makes someone better are different than what I feel makes someone better. Using your criteria, I probably agree that Flair is better. But I value my criteria more than yours, understandably. In a WON HOF note we argue things like drawing a lot more. Here, the criteria is different than even that. It ultimately means that we're talking about different things, but that doesn't mean we can't express our points and have a coherent discussion. There may be elements that I find in a Bret vs Kwang CV match that I find to be more appealing and more fundamentally impressive than in a Flair vs Windham or in Flair vs Koko or whatever. The math in my head is different than the math in yours, and that's okay. I'm not saying you're wrong in how you feel. I'm just saying that to me, Bret is better. This side of wrestling is the subjective side. The Art side. There just is no objectivity here. At best, there might be consensus.

This is why Flair is better than Bret. I personally think I, in general, do an okay job escaping the Great Matches paradigm without falling into the "What If" hole. It's okay if you disagree, and sure, I admit I'm also an island unto myself with how I look at wrestling, but I like to think I back up what I say at least a lot of the time, even if it ends up in some strange backwards language.

I think if we've made any really coherent decision as a group over the last few months, it's that "What Ifs" only get us so far, and "so" is not very at all.

Presuming you were replying to me there (there was a flurry), I don't think we shouldn't look at matches. I just tend to like to pick apart matches over time instead of just looking at great matches as a whole. I think there's plenty to learn from a 4 minute superstars jobber match, a bs first house show match of a feud, and from a great 25 minute classic, and from broken down segments of all of them. All of this stuff should be factored in when comparing wrestlers.

Flair hits his shit for the sake of hitting his shit, because he feels he needs to get it in. He goes in and out of having a strategy. I think a lot of the time he lets the crowd define what he's doing instead of deciding what the crowd wants for them. And he was successful for that. it's a successful approach. Absolutely, probably even more so than Bret's. But I prefer the latter personally, on a subjective level. The question in the poll is "Who is better?" Bret is better at the things I care about, thus to me, Bret is better. I think Flair's better using a bunch of other criteria, sure, some of it more mainstream, or more recognized as important by consensus, but using the criteria I care about, Bret is better. This is the criteria that I engage you people with whenever this sort of question is asked, however, so I'm consistent, unless of course, I'm in a note talking about the WON HOF or a GOAT note or something, at which point I use the criteria I think is important for that. I took this as "who do I think is a better wrestler." and to me that usually translates to "who do I think is consciously or unconsciously showing that they know what they're doing the most in the ring." That's the most important thing to me. If you do something, it should make sense. First and foremost. If it's interesting, clever, well-executed, believable, etc, then that's what separates the people who show that are doing things for a coherent, logical reason within the context of the match. Bret's excellent at that, especially in the second two-thirds of his matches. That matters to me. That's my starting point. I think he does other things well that takes him above other wrestlers who are good in the same way. Not all, but some.