Matt D

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..

I do think his primary argument is "different people have different tastes" combined with "You people are a joke to the rest of the world" though.

No hammered person can successfully spell satellite.

I kind of wonder if this is ever going to go back the other way around. I think it can only go so far. The "moves should matter" genie is a hard one to stuff back in.

Also, WON star ratings when it comes to Angle are absurd. I don't know if it's because of legitimacy, or because Meltzer loves ACTION or what, but it's just nuts.

I want a wrestling match and Angle sure as hell isn't my guy.

I often want to reference this incident but I can never find a good source. Do we know what the source was?