Matt D

Savage has a ton of 6 minute tv matches against guys that on paper sound great in this period (see: Bunkhouse Buck). And they're all formula and frustrating and terrible. Beat down, bodyslam, elbow. This is amazingly good compared to those. Lots of energy. A lot more back and forth and comebacks by Savage. Counters and some good believable brawling. I wouldn't call it a great match, but RELATIVE to most of Savage's 95/first half of 96 TV output it's great.

Down all day for me. This and similar sites are handy for occasions like this: http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ I think too many people tried to post the gif of Davey Richards and the Superplex at once in response to the WON awards

Can you imagine if he had been born a decade later and introduced his gimmick during the upsurge of the vampire craze? Talk about being born a decade too soon... Well, 1, they were capitalizing on Blade, and 2, they did have Kevin Thorn.

Gangrel maybe, although it didn't carry him any farther than a European Title shot. He had that awesome music, the entrance with flames, the blood-spitting, his own stable, and the bloodbath routine, and people seemed into it. I can't remember anything that he did, though. He had no memorable matches (maybe a product of the time), and I don't know if he ever got to cut a promo. Anyway, he wasn't carried very far by his gimmick, but he strikes me as a guy who was over solely because of the gimmick he was given rather than because of anything that he did. Someone (And I think it's Christian) tells a story about how they had HUGE plans for Gangrel. They loved the entrance and the look and everything else, but the first time he had a chance to do a major promo, he froze and that was the end of their faith in him.

It's not like Beefcake brought a lot with his promos either. Also, fans love a bully.

Is Beefcake the guy who was most carried by his gimmick? The haircut thing was super over and he has less to back it up than anyone I can think of.

I think there are some DBS/Warlord matches which are more coherent than most of Sid's body of work, but they did have a year to work out the match.

I swear at one point in the last day I heard him call a near fall as "1. 2. Et tu, Brute!" and I have no idea why. But it just slipped in subliminally until I really thought about it.

Sid had (spotty) charisma and look. Couldn't work a fucking lick. John Imagine if he DIDN'T have charisma though.

Obviously we need our own hall of fame.

I've head a bunch of Trongard/Superstar over the last couple of days and it's a weird pairing. I agree that he "sounded" right. And he also seemed to know what he was doing in there. It was his calling. That doesn't mean he was any good, but it sure as hell stands out when put against guys like Sean Mooney.

I knew it as a Jim Butcher novel. I think the nazi site has no space. But it does come up as the first google response with the butcher novel as the second.

Have we talked about Rod Trongard yet?

We're not just talking about a HOF but about a specific one with specific criteria that have been used over the years (for the most part at least). It's just about the only time that we, as a community, really care about drawing when comparing one wrestler to another.

Alright, I can get behind this mentality, but only in this specific situation (though of course, it IS what we're talking about). If we're talking about something other than a HOF, I still don't feel confident with "great matches" as the indicator since opportunity is a huge thing. Tito Santana, for instance, if he had spent his career in Memphis or Crockett or Mid South might have had a slew of much better matches.

WCW Prime has Solie/Dusty for a while in 95 before he had a hissy fit over Angelo Poffo entering the HOF and drunkenly stumbled out of the company. (Or is that just a wrestling myth too) I want to hear some Solie/DDP from Florida for some reason.

I'll say this. Sometimes when working, especially if doing a tedious task, I'll hop on youtube and put on an old PTW or Wrestling Challenge or something and just listen to it while doing stuff. And it's entertaining enough that I enjoy the experience. I couldn't imagine doing that with a Tony Schiovane/David Crockett show (though I'd probably be okay with Mid South so long as Watts was there; he was so frigging entertaining). Wrestling is more than just the matches. Wrestling announcing is more than just calling and explaining and putting in context what happens in the ring.

Isn't "being a better worker" a trait?

Re: Savage Heel turn in 89. On the shows after the Main Event, Savage wrestled Warrior a few times, but then he went RIGHT back to wrestling Bad News Brown on a Canada sweep and then a few other spots. There's one report that Brown played the face in these and that makes sense in Canada I guess? But in NM and CA? To me it's weird they didn't immediately pair him with Beefcake, since it was Brutus who shielded Hogan and told Savage to go away after the Elizabeth incident. There's no footage of face Brown vs Heel Savage, right?

Actually, Miz should do that as a heel antic. Or even Ryder as a face one. I think it'd get over fairly well.

Anyone who wants to see a really good Kane performance, just watch Backlash 2008 vs Chavo. After Mania where he beat him in 9 seconds you wonder how the match could be anything but a joke, but they went out there in had a really strong match based on legwork and so much of that was Kane's selling. What impressed me the most is how well he sold while on offense, making it seem like it took more effort to hit things than usual and making sure to sell getting up and moving around after every move. And it built into the story since it was how Chavo kept getting back on offense, the best bit being Kane being unable to hit his top rope clothesline properly late in the match and Chavo capitalizing by recovering more quickly and snapping his rope off the top. It was a smart, logical, believable ten minute match. Good stuff and Kane more than held his own.

We always take crap much too seriously. Still do. Folks who say that we shouldn't take crap too seriously are usually the folks who take crap too seriously and are upsets about people disagreeing with the crap they take too seriously. John Trust me. I'm sure that in 97 I would have gotten pissed about dusty making fun of luchadors and not calling Chris Benoit matches well. Now, my single favorite thing in all of wrestling in 1995 is Dusty wearing a witch's hat on WCW Prime.

Gorilla/Polo is the most entertaining commentary team of all time. In 2012, I'd rather listen to them than anyone. I'd probably rather watch a bad match with them than a good match with no commentary as a way to spend my time. That said I'm not sure I'd really want to watch a good match with them, if that makes sense.

I think we need to break off to have Sid talk. EDIT: also, how the hell did Monsoon win worst WON announcer in 93 when Rob Bartlet did at least a quarter of the year on Raw. I am just BOGGLED by that. Also, we all took crap way too seriously in 97. Dusty won worst announcer then.

I only like Superstar and Lord Alfred together and then it's not in a "they're good" sort of way but in a "what the hell are they talking about?" entertainment sort of way.