Matt D

How do you feel about the 12-29-91 Hogan/Flair match?

Anyone (Dylan?) want to chime in on Drew vs Christian from Superstars?

Tenta was a great combination of knowing when to give and what to give, having super credible offense including one of the best elbow drops in the history of wrestling, and being super strong and athletic.

You'd be surprised how much of America still didn't have cable television in the early 90's Nah, it was way worse in England.

Best Ottman match I can suggest right now is Summerslam 92 Disasters vs Beverly Brothers. Totally slept on match. Honestly, the disasters were pretty great. I don't think there's anyone in 92 WWF I would rather watch than Quake. He was the Mark Henry of the early 90s. Maybe Nord. Typhoon also had the best big splash in wrestling history. And there's ONE jobber match in 92 where he does this crazy cool double underhook roll-back move that he never does again. Best jobber match of theirs is 10/3/92 vs Horowitz and Bob Bradley.

Earthquake was a "fan in the crowd" (I'm assuming that's what you're thinking of). The angle was a push-up contest between Warrior and Bravo, they found a big man in the crowd (Tenta), who jumped on Warrior when his push-ups were attempted, and debuted right away as a heel. I don't recall Tugboat turning on Hogan. They fought during that battle royale in 1991, but I don't recall a full-fledged turn. The turn I recall was on Superstars against the Bushwhackers. If memory serves, it was Tugboat and the Bushwhackers against Earthquake and whoever Jimmy Hart's team was (I'm assuming the Nasty Boys). The rationale was, of course, that Hogan didn't visit Tugboat when he was in the hospital. And there is this, months later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNkmwtixtXs

Sorry, i meant it worked as in they were entertaining working against each other and I thought they had chemistry, and in this specific case, I only brought that up because the poster had groaned heavily just at the thought of them working a Summerslam program and I thought that was a bit of an overreaction. I don't think we'd have a repeat of the end result of the previous program after all. Punk is in a very different place now and Show has a very different role. I can't imagine he keeps the huge push after Summerslam. He's being built up to be fed to Cena and then Punk now. After that, they should probably feed him to Brodus and then shift him back down the card or into a tag role or something.

That's what Jesse was best at. He'd catch Vince in a morality trap and point out something absolutely valid and Vince would just go "Well, i don't know about that, but..."

Punk and Show worked well enough two years ago. It was a pretty entertaining program even if Show went over a little too much, maybe. It should be interesting to see how they'd work with the roles reversed. That said I'm not sure if I'd rather see that or the previously rumored Punk vs Tensai. Probably Show.

One thing I've noticed about 1985 is that he really doesn't give Crockett much attention at all. Not compared to WWF, Texas, Mid-South, and even the AWA. Did he just not have contacts there or what?

re: IRS, He really loved when the fans chanted IRWIN

The Early Raws are a good place to see some of Vince's feelings, because Bartlett would just go after anyone in any way he could. Like outright making fun of the Undertaker, and then Vince had to respond.

I think the classic example of this is the Killer Bees.

I think it's a useful term only in describing the fairly monolithic online internet community between 96-01 or so. You know, the "heirs of Meltzer." I may be facetious here.

I thought he already had three. Hey, if I can see where El-P is coming from (And I do. I just think he's going to find more frustration in his future), you can see where I'm coming from. I love match structure. I love reverse engineering why and how guys do what they do. An obstacle to overcome is pretty fascinating to me in this situation. It'll probably make for a worse match but I'm okay with that after the match we got last PPV.

So why is the rest gibberish too then, huh?

I think one thing I was getting at is that I sort of see that as an intellectual exercise for Bryan and Punk, like a writing challenge you do to stretch your mental muscles. I'm kind of interested in seeing that. I feel like it's the sort of scenario that doesn't come up in wrestling all that often. (Danielson vs Kamala was one and did that ever work out poorly). I want to see them crack that Triple Threat problem. That said, I have no idea WHY they're doing it other than lack of faith in Punk vs Bryan. I was talking to Mark about it and he thought it was a no-brainer that it was a way to get the belt onto DB without Punk eating the fall, but I'm not sure I buy that.

Two slightly different questions here, and I'm not always introspective about this, so bear with me. I'll be brief. This might be unsatisfying and I'm sorry if it is. I had a long response going into why I watch what I watch, but to put it far more simply.. When I was young I liked spotfets, then workrate, hunted four and five star matches. As I got older, I started to like whole shows, and then whole YEARS. I started to really like seeing things in context and how everything fit, the broader scheme of all that wrestling entails. Some of it was because I became a more passive watcher for various reasons and couldn't hyper focus on matches ALL the time I could devote to wrestling. Some of it was more availability of things like 80s Memphis and Mid South and even seasons of Superstars and WCW SN, some was just nostaglia blossoming out as I learned to appreciate things. I think the end result is this. I like really good matches. Absolutely. (and I'll get into Loss' question on what I consider good in a second). And I love when I'm emotionally invested, sure, but I'm not sure A GREAT MATCH FULL OF EXCITING WORKRATE is what really draws me anymore. I like to see things over time. I like to see patterns. I like to see how a wrestler deals with different situations, how he interacts with other wrestlers and in other feuds. I love old Event Centers where guys are cutting promos on each other, or the old Worldwide promos where a wrestler will talk about all sorts of stuff happening on the show that has nothing to do with him. I love battle royales where a heel suddenly finds himself in against another heel he's not used to working with, and just how both guys manage that situation. I started watching what was actually there instead of trying to hone in on exactly what I thought I wanted to see and I found a lot to really like and appreciate. I think when you're watching something at the time, you have more of an emotional stake in it being "good" and well-received than if you're just watching something old on your own. The argument isn't nearly as pressing. I was never the sort of guy to come up with a theory and then try to find evidence for it. That's not how I did my thesis either. I looked at a lot of data and then I tried to make sense of it. That's how the Demolition Project happened. I just happened to watch a number of matches in my general chronological late 80s WWF watching, and I started to see patterns and then tracked them down and found more, and I decided to write about what I found. I wasn't looking for anything at all. I'm usually not, but I almost always find SOMETHING. I guess my answer to you is that I love it when things are done well or are done interestingly. That could be a great build for what might be a pretty piss poor wrestling match or it might be a great match that just happens to have a terrible build, and if I had to choose, I'd have a bit of A and a bit of B, to be honest. I GOT the Bryan vs Punk match I wanted. I loved that match. I'm good for now. They gave me everything i wanted from that match up right now. I don't think they could add a ton with a rematch right now. I'd watch it, sure, and probably enjoy it, but they scratched my itch. I might want to see them go at it again in a few months if situations change a bit, but for now, I actually dig the idea of Kane being thrown into the mix. It changes things 180 degrees, just like that. They gave us EXACTLY what we expected from them before, and it was great, but now, Kane's tossed into the mix and I have no idea what they're going to do with him and that's exciting to me in a way a rematch wouldn't be. I get why people are upset about this, but I'm not. Will it make as good of a match? Probably not. I'm still more interested to see the three-way than a rematch, since I have no idea what it's going to look like and am really curious with how they're going to pull it off. So yeah, my cop out answer is that if I had to pick either or, I'd want the variety of a little of both. I enjoy good build. And I'm open to a lot of matches and even a lot of builds. A lot of what I thought was terrible as a kid was just not to my specific tastes. It doesn't mean it didn't accomplish what it was meant to or that there wasn't both skill and knowledge involved. I'm not sure I would have put it this way. I'm not sure I'd argue either. I like the sound of it. In general, I want story, not action (or workrate as I saw it in 2000). Now, if someone can give me both story and action, that's great. They're not mutually exclusive, except for of course that they kind of are. One element of storytelling is knowing when to hold back, is knowing when to rein in the action. I just want every little thing that happens in a match to have consequence and to have meaning, to happen for a logical reason, and to ultimately make sense. If it's simple, that's better than it not existing at all. If it's subtle, even better than simple. Wrestling is fiction. I do want to watch guys convey the big picture stuff really well. And more than that, I want there just to be a big picture! Sure it's exciting watching guys pinball and bump all over the ring for each other, but I've seen hundreds of those sort of matches. I'd rather see a simple match that makes sense and has meaning and resonance, than a complex match that goes a mile a minute but has no meaning and doesn't hold up. That said, I do appreciate cool little things: leverage moves, holds, reversals. I love the building blocks, don't get me wrong, but when they're used poorly or without meaning, it bugs me. That's the only thing in watching wrestling that really bugs me right now. Wrestling doesn't have to be simple, but a lot of times it's better when it is, because so few wrestlers seem to be able to be able to manage complex without losing coherence. So few wrestlers seem to even WANT to try.

Presentation matters. Especially over time. Guess who worked a main event on a PPV this year? Guess who got the expensive repackage? Who won at Mania. Not the guy who was booked as a vulnerable heel champion, lost in 17 seconds at Mania, lost his rematch in a match with stips he wanted, lost his first shot at Punk. Size doesn't hurt, but booking matters. They've been trying to rectify that a little bit in the last month, but I don't think DB has been protected well or presented all that well. They weren't planning on going with him long term before the Yes stuff picked up and changed his life, so it's been a slow course change and while all of that works when he HAS the belt, it's a little wonky when he's chasing it. And Kane's a good worker in the right situations, and a lot smarter than he was in 95. He's been at this for a while and he's worked just about every good wrestler they've had for 15 years.

You are the grumpiest guy ever. I bet it'd be way more fun to watch wrestling with Johnny Sorrow than with you. Hey, guess what? Kane is a pretty good worker. He just works a style that you don't like, and you have very particular tastes, which is okay, but seriously I don't think you SHOULD watch WWE programming. You'll just cause yourself pain. Also, Kane in a World title match in 2012 is still more credible than Daniel Bryan in a world title match in 2012. We might rather DB be there, but I think it's a huge jump, both kayfabe and otherwise, to think that Kane isn't considered more credible in a ton of ways.

It's not like that at all. Studd was completely immobile in 88. There's a lot that Kane can still do and he's a pretty savvy guy. He likes matches with size differences quite a bit and I imagine that they'll be able to do something very self aware and smart if it becomes a three way. I'm interested to see how they put it together, probably more interested than I'd be in another Punk vs Bryan match because past building a little on the last one, I'm not sure how they could do something better than that right now. I think it would have been a lot more of the same, and while that's great, this is wildly different and I kind of want to see it.

To be honest, I don't actually think they weren't a national promotion, but I was really shocked to figure out just where they didn't run, especially since just assumed they did shows here and there and I never heard anyone talk about it before.

I'm just saying that national TV isn't the end all.

GWF was on ESPN. I watched it when I was a kid. I got pissed off during the baseball expansion draft because it was preempted. Definitely on National TV. On the other hand even where they didn't run at all, I was still able to buy WCW Magazine, trading cards, and action figures as a kid.

According to the site, they didn't work New York at all in 91 or 92 either. Think about that. For 91/92, how are you a national promotion without working either the Northeast (they worked Jersey and DE and PA of course) or the North-NW (I don't see anything in WA, OR, WY, IH, ND, SD). Also nothing in UT, NV, CO. Just to name a few. As best as I can tell, WWF worked all of these places (give or take the one where the wrestling commission was weird).