Matt D

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?

Up with the baby so sorry if this is incoherent. This is a lot more even. Thank you for the rewatch. Not everyone would do that. Not everyone on this board would do that. It works even better in context. There's a reason why Demolition is so pissed off. Personally I am such a proponent of smart workers and playing a role (i.e. taking just enough and giving just enough that I admit Eadie being really smart is a huge part of the appeal. Wrestling is symbolic so that the offense worked for the crowd works for me. That is just me and really, a lot of times what they do DOES look good on top of that. I think Darsow shows huge improvement from when he started the gimmick; he learns over time, though I realize this is a couple of years in, but in some matches you can tell more and his physicality balances things. I still do get frustrated when he does something that's not foolproof but they tag pretty frequently when on top and Eadie is DEFINITELY directing traffic most matches. For the Rockers match notice how they can turn up the pace while selling. Watching Eadie on triple speed because the match calls for it is sort of amazing. Also, if you're going to watch a third match, I suggest the 88 Hart Foundation match. If you watch that, check out how Demos treat a much higher on the totem pole face team on a much higher stage. It doesn't make sense for Eadie to beg off on Jannetty so he doesn't. When he does it for Bret at an appropriate moment, it therefore becomes a huge deal. That speaks to the versatility. They could play FIP vs the Twin Towers because it made sense or they could be pissed off and dominant against cheating technical heels like the Brainbusters. They could turn up the pace with the Rockers but could also stooge off against the Harts. Their matches against different teams generally feel different, and they even change things up when wrestling the same team. Watching the Towers series is interesting in what they do differently with different matches in the series. Great matches, maybe? But over time they (and I realize it's mostly Eadie from a mental standpoint yes) do things that I've rarely seen WWF wrestlers of the era do. When I started to appreciate Demolition matches, it was when I was watching a lot of MSG/Boston/MLG/Philly shows one after the next so I was seeing the whole roster go through their stuff. The Demolition matches were surprisingly compelling and varied wildly in structure from match to match which surprised me as I had a pretty negative preconceived notion and not a lick of nostalgia I started to delve deeper. The things that stay constant is that they make their opponents work for every bit of offense, every bit of relief, and every hot tag, and that in and of itself almost forms its own story. It's pretty cool. Anyway, Thanks again for the consideration. You exasperated the heck out of me before.

I love the Andre tag, for what it's worth.

Wow. There's so much emotion in everything but the last Brainbusters/Demos match. That's just a weird title switch non starter. I can give you very exact examples of where I think the emotion is. I wrote the thing up. Let me know if you want me to point it out. In general, though, it's your opinion but I think that's a real quizzical one. The SNME match is one of my favorite matches of all time, because of the story they told. The MSG match is just an awesome pissed off revenge mauling with Arn and Tully fighting for their lives. That said, I love the RnR title win too, but we are talking a different language here.

I'd be really surprised if most of the internet went with Cena at all, let alone like this. Happily, though.

It killed me with early angle that he never really did a lot of wrestling or matwork. I remember being really frustrated by that when I was younger.

I never can get anyone to argue me on my points when it comes to them, which drives me nuts. Granted, in order to argue me on my points, you have to take sort of a comparative view, so I do understand. It goes against the "great match" mindset to some extent (not that they don't have some).

On paper that's a really fun heel team. I kind of want to go back and find promos.

There's a difference between a traditional superman babyface comeback after selling a whole match and skipping the apparent tedium of selling so you can get the next spot in to pop the crowd.

If you know what to look for, you notice certain things. I wish I could watch Flair matches, for instance, in blissful ignorance, like I could five years ago. Unfortunately, I can't. Tito matches too, though I kind of like his formula so I don't mind as much.

I'm not even sure what to do with that. Anyway, I think a hell of a lot less of Flair for the same sort of reasons, if it makes you feel better. If I differ in opinion with a wrestler when it comes to some very essential aspects of wrestling, it is very likely i will like their work less and rank them lower than I might otherwise? This seems like a reasonable tenet to me.

We can't talk about Shawn Michaels' attitude noted in a Shawn Michaels book about a Shawn Michaels match in the Shawn Michaels note? Ok, we can talk about it in the other note. EXCEPT it's a match with Shawn Michaels in it, and we have a note specifically about Shawn Michaels matches, so obviously we can't talk about it in the Demolition note, because we have a note specifically about Shawn Michaels. We are in Catch-22 land here. I get where you're coming from, John, but it's a little silly. Let's make this reply productive at least: Quote in question, which I think is pretty damn interesting as it pertains to Shawn and his understanding of wrestling in general. I retyped it off of books.google.com after a quick search. Also I get that wrestlers are carnies in books, but I tend to believe Shawn feels this way. Page 136, Heartbreak & Tragedy: The Shawn Michaels story. That mindset pretty much misses completely the idea of a role, that it'll take more to knock down Andre than Ray Rougeau, that the heel tag champs should be protected in a different way than the Conquistadors, and that them falling down matters to the match way more when the babyfaces have to earn it. That having an exciting match doesn't necessarily mean you have a GOOD match. So those are Shawn's thoughts and my problems with them. That I think Demos gave very well in that match and very smartly and that it was an exciting match with more meaning and resonance than a lot of other Rockers matches from the era is really beyond the point.

Despite Michaels being bitchy and saying that Demos didn't give them nearly enough, which is blatantly moronic and perfectly false. (He adds for the fourth time)

what they should have done was put Cena with a young guy and have them win the tag titles for a while. They used Kevin Nash to 1995 Diesel Punk!

He's the International Champion, thank you very much.