Matt D

I like that post a lot, actually. I do think Flair didn't just do what felt right but also what he thought he was supposed to do or what he thought worked, without caring about a big picture. I'd also say that Bret was a lot more able to call an audible than that would indicate. But in general, it's not bad.

I'm sure we all have a guy who we mainly know from the Apter mags and always wondered about as a kid. For me, that's Vic Steamboat. For the two years I was really into wrestling as a kid he was always in the standings somewhere and as a big Ricky Steamboat fan I absolutely wondered.

Or the Minis version of such (says the guy who's 5'5")

I just wanted to add that I do kinda understand where you're coming from with your Bret criticisms. What you say about Bret sounds similar to how I feel about Flair. I used to be a big fan but I just can't watch him anymore. Most every Flair match is ultimately about Flair's shtick and very much Flair-centric. For the most part, Bret's matches are Bret's matches. Much like Flair, he definitely had a set way of working. I think there's enough variations in Bret's template and he switches up enough parts to the point where I don't find the formula repetitive. In fact it's impressive to me how he can work off of his formula to tell different narratives. I wouldn't mind Flair's repetitiveness so much if his matches were smarter and not as hokey. This is pretty much how I feel, though I'm not sure I'd say the last sentence quite the same.

I can watch a comedy and a drama and judge the two of them side by side. It's not that hard to do if you've seen a lot of both comedies and dramas. Yes, they're trying to accomplish different things, but you can judge how well they accomplished the things they tried to accomplish, the level of difficulty innate in what they were doing, etc, and make a decision. But then I like the Bushwhackers vs Beverly Brothers way more than most people because I think they did what they went out to do in a successful manner. It doesn't mean it'll stack up well against something with a much higher level of difficulty or complexity, all else equal, though.

Everyone I consider trustworthy or otherwise praised the show to the heavens. If anyone dislikes the show I will really have to wonder why they bother with modern Wrestling. Does this mean I'm not trustworthy? I think we can compare and contrast Dylan's initial show he watched in this note and this one and appreciate that he's definitely found other reasons to bother with modern wrestling.

I'm sure in Vince's mind the difference was that he was gambling with everything he had while Turner was just pulling from one of many giant piles.

I think I am going to attempt this. A part of me thinks the smart road to take would be to tie it in with Superstars. Yes they are different shows and different things are going on with both in terms of over all presentation. But the key is that both shows were the "wrestling" shows where the undercard talent were given time to shine against each other (and occasionally against upper card talent). Honestly, I think you could do two different comps. There's enough stuff there.

Does All American exist anywhere between 88-92 or so? I know 93 has a pretty full run but i can't even find good results for exclusive matches between 88 and 92. And just think of all the lost bobby the brain goofballery.

It's also vaguely personal with Bret and myself. And this note is as good a place as ever to put it. I'm sure I've told this story but I was lucky enough to have a friend growing up who had an uncle who worked for Titan. I don't know in what regard. I barely remember the guy but the kid was the younger sibling of a friend of my older sister and we were often on the same youth soccer team together or what not, with his dad as the coach and mine as the assistant coach. He had certain developmental issues and I like to think even as a kid I was always good to him. And again later when we he managed the baseball team in high school and i did the scorebook. But yes, his dad worked for Titan and as we were both into wrestling (he was a huge Hogan fan, I liked the Rockers and Tito). We were able to go to a few house shows comped at the old Boston Garden, and if his uncle was there, we got to go back stage. This is 91 and I'm nine or so. Well, the kid goes with me half way to the back stage area before he gets terrified of the idea of Slaughter being back there and flees back to his seat. I go on and Bret just had his match with the Barbarian so he's just out of the shower and I have sort of a Mean Joe Green moment meeting him. He was eminently kind to me, way more than he needed to be and signed a ticket stub that we found (since I hadn't brought anything to be signed or a camera or anything. It was all spur of the moment, getting to go back stage like that). I know people had bad experiences with him later on but he was really great to me when I was a lucky nine year old in 91. That said, he still had a damn great 93.

His work has aged far better than Shawn's, though.

i think you have to include 93. Like I said in the top 5 note there are a litany of really good+ matches. Flair Ironman, Bigelow in Europe. Yoko Cage (and we don't even have the best of the cage matches they had apparently). And really just the sheer accomplishment of going 30-40 with Backlund in a very good MSG match and then the next night having the Razor, Perfect, and Bam Bam matches at KOTR. 92 is interesting. Obviously there's the Davey carry job, the Piper match. Michaels at Survivor Series, but he had a ton of very solid televised Title defenses against giants in fall. Not a ton of them stand out. None of the Flair matches we have are even close to the ironman match in 93. I don't think we have a lot of the summer IC defenses vs Michaels, and none of the Mountie matches are very good from what I remember. I think 93 is a much clearer year and one that's much harder to dispute.

It always surprised me just how much handheld material seems to be available from late 85 into 86 too

That would be a great movie. The mayor requests equal time so the sports radio channel offers to give him his own show.

I was kind of hoping the spear would help take him over the top.

I don't want to talk about how I felt when Russo/Ferrara jumped.

ECW was literally the only TV that I went out of my way to watch live in 09. In fact, I REALLY went out of my way to see the Regal vs Christian match from the UK because it was that much of a big deal at the time.

We have people here who are some of the strongest proponents of the WWE ECW on the internet. We also have people here who put together and/or participated in huge and lofty original ECW projects. Therefore, I'm putting it to the board, which of the two had more high end matches? What was better?

I'd rather watch a Sid match than a Brody match. That's not to say a Sid match would innately be better, but I'd probably find more to be amused by.

I started to think I was wrong about the Monsoon/Polo team. Guess what. I'm not. It's hilarious. Heenan riles Monsoon but Polo pokes at him in completely different ways. Watch this pretty middling (after a rough start) Tatanka/Bam Bam match and tell that me the stuff where Levy asks Monsoon about the longest match he ever had isn't absolutely hilarious. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7jyrf_ta...m-bigelow_sport

I haven't noticed this nearly as much with Punk in the back half of this year.

Everyone was really high on buff in 97 after he did some Japan tours (DEAN loves him in those old workrate reports). I don't know how well that stuff has aged though

I know wrestling isn't real but try picturing Funk going unhinged and attacking meltzer for laughing at him like he did the ring attendant in his 80s WWF debut for not being careful enough with his hat.

1982's Davey Richards.

Nord Claims that Brody and he were about to come in to WWF as a team when he died. They asked Hansen about that and he didn't seem to know about it but also said that Brody would do business if that was the case since he was a business man.