Matt D

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.

Also, the end moment was Ziggler getting heat on Punk. I think it's generally better to put over the opponent right before a title match than the authority figure, no?

Would there be any argument for the team of Race and Larry Hennig? I'm totally ignorant here, but I know they had a fairly long and I thought successful run.

I wrote up over thirty matches! I don't care if they disagree, but I'd rather not they be confused about it! As for Dino, I fully believe that he was a hell of a draw/super over in Montreal, and the talk of them canceling the match with Hogan would prove speak to that too, but he was probably the worst/laziest pushed guy from a work perspective in the WWF during the late 80s and that's a pretty tough post peak to get over. Slightly related, as for WON voting, how they could put Fuji over Frenchy Martin for worst manager is beyond me. WWF Dino vs. Montreal Dino are two completely different animals. Dino was certainly the go-to guy in Quebec in the first part of the 80's. No question. He was mostly the champion of the area, and the top heels would come in and fight him for the title. Sorta reminds me of Backlund's title reign, except the heel challengers would get the title once in a while, sometimes even keeping it for a bit and making Bravo the chaser. Masked Superstar and King Tonga are the two that spring immediately to mind. Robinson is another one I think had a run with him. I think Patera and Bravo have similar hurdles to get over in general, because a huge majority of the audience base are going to remember sad, sickly, out of place post-prison Patera and blonde, plodding, selfish Bravo over all else. I buy the argument for Patera being both a huge draw and a great worker and he had a relatively short post-peak before dropping off the face of the earth (But boy does it ever stand out. He is the most out of place guy in the WORLD in the Survivor Series he's in). Bravo on the other hand was all over the place in late 80s WWF. And while I buy he was a draw in French Canada, I don't buy that he had the level of work a guy who was also top draw in a limited geographic area, like, let's say Buddy Rose, had, to make up the difference. But then my non-dyed Bravo exposure is pretty limited relative to Patera or Rose. Pimp me a match or two?

I wrote up over thirty matches! I don't care if they disagree, but I'd rather not they be confused about it! As for Dino, I fully believe that he was a hell of a draw/super over in Montreal, and the talk of them canceling the match with Hogan would prove speak to that too, but he was probably the worst/laziest pushed guy from a work perspective in the WWF during the late 80s and that's a pretty tough post peak to get over. Slightly related, as for WON voting, how they could put Fuji over Frenchy Martin for worst manager is beyond me.

Demolition were kings of psychology and structure. Say what you will about their lack of diverse offense (and there's an argument there), but Eadie knew exactly when things should happen and why. And since no one was going to argue with him, Demos matches tend to have that stuff.

With Kane, it's so easy to look past all the things that REALLY make it great and revolutionary, because they're things we take for granted now.

I can fully understand someone not liking Rip Rogers, but I also have no idea how I could find common ground with that person. Rip is basically everything about wrestling I love.

For just a moment there, I thought you were saying this.

John I remember when the true history of Wrestlemania DVD came out and we were all talking about Basil Devito as a guy we didn't really give much thought to before that. Honestly, I bet if someone asked Finkel about who did what on twitter they might get some answers.

My bias against ventura is, in part, that I think if he DID get in, it would be for all of the wrong reasons.

I'll be honest. I've always likened John's posts more to War and Peace than A Tale of Two Cities

For anyone interested (and someone can knock this down if it's either A ) not allowed in this section of the board, though I'm not sure anyone even sells it. That'd go against the spirit of the thing from Jesse's pov, I'd think, or B ) a faulty link or just the wrong file; I can't double check it at work): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5A9PYQC1 This is a fascinating off the cusp, impromptu Ventura chat from 93 or 94, between smarks and Ventura, at a convention or show or something.

I think everyone's underestimating the sheer amount of hours Finkel put in backstage in the 80s too.

Shouldn't we be comparing Hunter to Larry Z?

and do note that I wasn't necessarily saying it was Jesse so much as "someone who caused 2% of the WWF 80s boom vs someone who caused 80% of his far smaller territory's success." Jesse and Buddy just sort of seemed to vaguely fit. I'm more interested in the general question, than the specifics, so if you can plug in someone better, please be my guest. Arn scored really high in his grouping on the poll, no?

I know this is going to be laughed out of the room but Jesse does claim to have set up the Universal tapings due to connections he had through hollywood.

I knew I was forgetting someone. For a minute I thought it was Hayes but the timing didn't work out. yeah, Piper sort of kills that argument for Jesse. but What if you run the math and decide that Jesse is somehow responsible for 2% of the success. I'm not sure you would (I actually think someone who did so much of the back office managing like Finkel might be worth more than Jesse, his ring announcing be damned). But let's say you did. How much does 2% of THAT success compare to the sort of success someone else like.. and I hate bringing it up but it's on my mind, Buddy Rose had elsewhere, where he was worth a huge percentage of the success in his territory? (and I'm sorry if that paragraph made no sense).

Part of me wonders if Jesse is beloved because he was somehow smarkier in his comments. Or maybe he was just anti-Hogan at a time where it seemed like no one else in the rest of the country was anti-Hogan except for Dave and his ilk. As if he was their mouthpiece on some level. Maybe that's reaching too far. I think he's entertaining, but part of why I like him is because, as a kid, I always felt "hey, Jesse has a point!" which has nothing to do with him being effective, just with me being contrary. I don't know, how important/extraordinary/influential/striking, relatively, is the WWF's success in the 80s? I think it's something of a valid question?

For Monsoon, I think it'd be worth looking at his promotional/managerial roles. As an announcer, his main skill, often to the detriment of matches where it wasn't needed, was to make the really, really crappy WWF mid 80s prelim matches watchable by being engaging and amusing. I wonder if people wouldn't have so willingly sat through Swede Hansen vs Mike Sharp to get to a two minute Hogan promo if Monsoon wasn't there to keep things entertaining. Is that reason enough to be in the HOF as an announcer? I doubt it but he deserves credit for it.