Matt D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-noOiX4t-ps Jim Brunzell vs "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig 9/11/88 Super early Perfect match in WWF and really, if you're going to debut the guy, why not do it against a guy like Brunzell. This is sort of like an AWA match on fast forward in some points, dumbed down in others, and a bit more like comfort food in even others. Brunzell wins the matwork early on. He tries to set up the figure four. Hennig does a king of the mountain segment, confusing Superstar. There's this awesome jump up after a sunset flip, and Hennig has some fast and brutal strikes. They keep going back to the chinlock, but they use it to build to hope spots that Hennig cheats to get back on top. they never just sit in it for long. There's a segment with backwork which Brunzell sells pretty well. The real comeback begins when Brunzell decides to cheat too. Hennig takes a super bump over the top and goes back to selling the leg. And even that gets cut off. Really great comeback shot and then sleeper by hennig. Finish kind of comes out of nowhere, but you can sort of believe it as a reversal off of a dropkick attempt. It's a match well worth watching though I'm sure it's not as high end as it could be. Hennig always seems lacking on top when he's a heel (at least in WWF).

Part of me wants to watch a bunch of WCW JYD and make an argument how he's better than Angle. But I have all this AWA to watch and then want to watch every Killer Bees match ever.

care to explain how?

Kane doesn't turn, really. He just IS. They usually don't bother making sense of it.

Turned Heel on Hardy Turned Face last year. Did I miss any? I know he swerved the New Blood/Breed/Whatever for a night.

That's my list ( I'd probably switch out the last one for the Demolition © vs British Bulldogs - MSG - 7/25/88 match too) but for the sixty-forth time, to me it's not necessarily about great matches, but about trends over time. You can watch a two minute span of just about any Demolition match (especially when Eadie's in the ring), and track those two minutes and everything they do in it will make sense, build towards something, and be grounded, meaningful and believable, and yeah, get over. I get how people who subscribe to the "great match" mentality will balk at that as being unimportant or about "what might have been." but to me, it's almost exactly the difference between the Shawn Michaels note and this one. With Shawn, it's about finding the great matches, because if you pick apart the work itself, it doesn't hold up under analysis. No, Demolition does not have a ton of great matches. But if you pick apart the work, what they do, what they make their opponents do, it really DOES hold up under analysis. When you add in how many different roles they could play successfully (and smartly and at the right time) while still maintaining their identity and how they switched up structure between matches and didn't follow a formula, they're a great team. That they were able to balk at the heel in peril WWF structure and make the faces earn every bit of offense upon them makes them a great team. To me, but I fully admit that my criteria is very different than a lot of people's. but at least I explain why I like them and at length. You can bounce off Vic and try to meet him on his points (because he does think that they have a shit ton of great matches; I think they have a few) or you can engage me on mine. Or you can find your own. I see wrestling as symbolic. I like structure. I like every move mattering and every bit of offense, every hot tag, every iota of anything being earned. Do they have great matches? Maybe. Do they have great wrestling? Absolutely. In the late 80s WWF environment, those two things do not necessarily go hand in hand. I am arguing some very specific things, but things that I think are important and remarkable and really stand out. It's okay if you don't care about what I care about and don't want to argue with me on those elements, but I don't think I can add much more to what I've already said.

I think trick here would be to look at other Rockers' matches from this point in 88.

And it's possible shoe might have liked that match even more. That argument seems like a taste thing to me. if the guy likes flashy, entertaining offense over storytelling, then that's fine.

Nothing says confidence like the fact they're seemingly aiming towards Bryan and Sheen interacting.

So as far as I can tell, fairly big names went to Hawaii to work for Rocky's mother throughout the 80s. Do we have any of this footage? Did they have local TV?

The Luger match is on youtube and it's a fun. Luger sells and stooges great for Tito and fits into the formula perfectly, cheating to overcome Tito's superior wrestling and speed only for Tito to get back control until he finally takes over, at which point tito has some fun hope spots that get cut off. Nasty looking finish with the forearm too. Well worth watching. I love how there's a Tito vs Flair match, a Tito vs Windham match, and a Tito vs Luger match (and Tito vs Arn and Tully of course). The best of the bunch is the Windham one though.

Holy crap. The four minutes where One Man Gang and Jerry Blackwell are wrestling each other is the single greatest thing in all the history of wrestling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEt4AuUtHdI

I feel like it might have been a part of the longer HOF thread and not it's own thing. Anyway, thanks.

I was actually expecting Bartlett when they announced an old announcer. I really, truly think that they should have sacrificed the last month of TV in order to time the returns of Rey, Sin Cara, Jericho, Truth, and any other injured/suspended guy they had and then done this like that first Bischoff/Russo episode of Nitro where every single segment had some sort of surprise/return.

There's a great PTW Koko vs Race match you should watch too.

I thought we had a big Jerry Blackwell thread but I can't find it. This is tangential. It's actually St. Louis stuff, but do we have any of the Harley Race/Jerry Blackwell feud over the St. Louis title on tape?

VonKramer is going NUTS

there's a project for you

Granted, it's a lot easier to watch Savage vs Steamboat than Mike Sharpe vs Sam Houston.

There are two Demolition vs Twin Towers matches available from the same leg of the feud and I found looking at both together really interesting. But that's a whole different level of analysis.

This is debatable to some extent, but in general, I think yeah, you should watch every ITERATION. If they come through 3 times, try to find one of each, at least. Though there's something to be learned from watching what they do one night apart.

I think Demolition was absolutely driving and controlling the Rockers match. They kept things under control so that everything had more meaning. The Rockers did the flashy stuff (though Demolition turning up the pace for them to make the armwork WORK is impressive and shouldn't be underlooked. If they couldn't eat that super fast offense, it wouldn't have worked after all), but flashy offense doesn't make a match. We know that. Demolition weren't the props in that match to be worked around, the Rockers were, if either team was. They were just super flashy props. As for Smash, I'm way more concerned that he's controlling the ring space, selling well, interacting with the crowd and not losing the structure of the match. This is 80s WWF. I don't necessarily want snug stuff, which isn't to say that at least a good portion of his stuff doesn't look good. It's just that I find wrestling symbolic and there are 30 things I care more about than moves even connected. If the fans buy it and it makes sense, that's generally good enough for me. IF it looks good, even better, but I care about it making sense and working in the context of the match way more. That's just my personal preference though. If I want meaningless stiffness, I'll watch the Road Warriors. If I want good, smart wrestling I'll watch Demolition. I can understand how people would feel otherwise, but I am arguing on a very specific matrix, and it's qualities that are important to me. John Cena's offense looks like shit and we all argue he's a great wrestler. Why, because it works. The fans buy it. Wrestling is symbolic. I don't necessarily say that Demolition is unconditionally great. I argue some very specific points of some very specific qualities that I found in their matches that I was very impressed by and that I had never seen discussed before. These are areas I find really impressive especially in the environment that they had to work in. I try to engage on those points, and often find a hard time finding people that will engage me on these points, whether it's due to the fact we're in a "GREAT MATCH" culture, and a lot of what they did impressive and what stands out is seen over time in relatively short WWF matches or because people won't look past the FAKE ROAD WARRIORS talking point or the mythos talking point, neither of which I care about in the least. I believe that if you're watching EVERY show, you'll notice what they do, and it'll stand out because it did for me when I wasn't expecting it to, but that it also may not lead to picking a lot of matches on the set. And seriously, full god damn marks to rzombie, because he seems to get it in a way I've obviously failed to help others with. Thank you. My arguments are pretty damn specific, but they are of things I find wildly impressive that I never expected to see in these guys and that I've not seen almost at all in other 80s WWF work and rarely in a team that's not of the caliber of Arn/Tully. I think I've made them very clear by reviewing over 30 matches and summing things up repeatedly. I'm not sure what else I can do. That said, a lot of what Smash does is pretty good. He has more lapses than Eadie, but not as many as you'd think. He also has a few more big moves and a bit more athleticism.

You'll notice in my stuff that I never, ever talk about the gimmick. I have no nostalgia for them. I don't really care about the music. I thought they were lame as a kid (but then I hated Earthquake, Bossman, and Haku matches too, so yeah). I'm almost entirely talking about ring presence (knowing where you are at all times, timing, positioning, general savvy), match structure, and playing one's role in the ring (in as knowing when to give, when not to give, and how much). Vic and others can argue about the rest. I don't care at all about the mythos. It's the matches that made me write about them, and the matches in a comparative manner. the breadth of them. When it comes to the things I mentioned, however, they're in another bracket from the Road Warriors. Eadie is a god king superworker compared to them and Darsow does a lot of what they do well but a lot more on top of that, especially coached by Eadie. To me, the big question is how much was actually intentional and how much of it was just Eadie wanting to make his opponents work for everything in order to protect himself, but knowing what he had to do to put both teams and the match over. The matches could be so much better structured than most of the 80s WWF tag output solely on that fact, but since they switched things up so much, even against the same teams, I tend to think it's more deliberate than that. The way Demolition sells and gives couldn't be more different from how the Road Warriors do it. Their gimmick might be similar but in the ring they are VERY different.

You are in bad shape if you're voting like me, pal. You're going to love the 3/13/83 Six Man with Bobby on Disc 2 though.

I like Dolph a lot but I'm not sure I'd put him over Bryan just in the WWE right now. And hell, I just saw Regal/Ambrose II this morning. So it's hard to put either guy over Regal for semi active WWE guys..