Matt D

I swear I heard him say it on the shoot. I just don't remember where, and it's long. Granted, I've heard so many things over the last year and a half...

There's a fun (and probably mostly inaccurate) historiography story about how excited the Social (Marxist) Historians were when computers developed to the point where they could really process complex economic and demographic information on a large macro scale. Finally, they thought, they were going to have mathematical proof of their theories and suppositions. It would be the absolute "end of history." Then they ran their numbers and the computer basically gave them anything but what they expected. I feel like in some ways Flair's long shoot was sort of like that. I mean obviously some people realized well beforehand but they were few and far between. Jesus Christ... _you're_ the one who made the quote. Go pull it, Matt. John I'm at work and my MP3 player's fried! (probably from trying to listen to the Matt Bourne shoot. I can understand it giving up there.) Okay, okay, I'll try to find it tonight if I can.

I'll quote it again: Now I don't think Ric tells the story that he was a 16-22 year old "kid" who watched wrestling like jdw, Loss, Bix, the Two Phils, Jerry and Cross Face Chicken Wing in the sense of Smart Fan Analyzing Wrestling: "Stevens did a really good job of selling for Robinson tonight, but I really missed the face first flop because that always seals the deal on Stevens really bitching out for the faces." -Kid Ric Flair Does that at all sound like how Young Ric Flair would watch wrestling matches? Or is that 180 degrees opposite of how Ric would watch it, given his (and nearly every other old timer's) dislike for hardcore fans over thinking ever aspect of wrestling? I go back to trying to draw the link between: #1 - what in Stevens/Buddy's act that Stevens/Buddy could have dropped out that disappointed Ric #2 - what in Flair's act he kept doing because dropping it would disappoint what *he* views as fans Did Ric back as a kid really think Stevens not doing the face first flop was disappointing? Or would it have been something like the Bombs Away? So what are Ric's equiv of the Bombs Away? * Figure Four * Chop, Chop and More Chops * Eternal Suplex * Face First Flop * Ric Tossed Off The Top * Ric Flips Into The Corner I'm guessing that Ric really, really, really doesn't think that the last three are his equiv of the Bombs Away and that fans would be disappointed if they weren't in matches. They simply are things that he knows make the faces look good and got pops from the fans. More likely the first three, more so the first two. Again... we need to stop thinking that Ric as a "kid" viewed wrestling like we do. We're hardcore fans who overthink this shit. Ric doesn't... not even when he got into the business and it was his job to think about the shit. John Can someone pull the exact quote?

Because it happens so god damn little?

Also, and I think people forget this, or ignore it, but a wildly huge majority of matches especially of the last ..what, twenty years? don't tell a story well. Either there's no attempt or there's no time or there's just wild lapses in execution. It should be the first and most important thing. Every move should matter. But that happens so rarely. It's worth pointing out when it's done and done well.

Wrestling isn't realistic. It's wrestling. That said, you should find an example of a match which has a compelling and complete non-linear storyline. I think with movies/other forms of fiction, you can jump around time-wise and reveal things out of order, or what have you. With wrestling, you don't quite have those tools at your disposal. I don't quite get what you want here? CHIKARA to do a MEMENTO match?

I don't know. I buy Flair's logic. It frustrates the hell out of me that his matches consistently toss aside storytelling so he can get his stuff in. I buy that it's due to some sort of childhood wrestling trauma making him bullheaded.

I realize it's not where your head's been at, but what do you think about Santana/Martel. They were married for over a year, no? Okay it just FELT that long. He did wrestle Ron Garvin all throughout the summer of 90 and that sounds fairly interesting.

I agree with that. I remember the story of Sting asking Flair not long into their run why they did the same match every night, and Flair told him people want to see the familiar spots and feel disappointed when they don't get them. Well Flair tells a story where he saw someone Buddy Rogers? Ray Stevens? Someone, as a kid and they didn't do some of their spots and he was hugely disappointed. And that basically shaped his wrestling "psychology" for the rest of his life.

In some ways Page is Savage's soulmate when it comes to putting together a match.

I forget who said it, but SOMEONE had a theory that Flair would keep guys like Sting almost dependent upon him through the way he called the matches with them.

You almost wonder if the injury didn't force Sting to improve.

And who I gushed about in 01-02 when he came out with a Britney Spears cut out at the local indy. Tons of charisma and it never ever transfers on TV for some reason.

Kimberly is hilarious in this.

It didn't need to be. He was pushed SO well in the first half of 09. He felt like a big deal. Then he got moved to Raw which was the death knell for so many ECW guys. I think he was still redeemable after winning the title, and was a lot of fun, if not particularly effective when it came to his stuff with Show. Ah well.

So, just to be completely clear here, it was Flair/Luger which drew over the mystery of the Black Scorpion? because people freaking love mysteries.

Whatever it was. IT WORKED. Re: Meltzer: Highest drawing wrestling show on TBS through at least the end of 94 or so: 9/90 Mountain Madness Clash of Champions headlined by Sting vs. Black Scorpion and Ric Flair vs. Lex Luger which drew 2,769,000 households

Meltzer's bios are so informative but at the same time they're structurally maddening. He goes in circles with them, usually getting to where the proper chronological beginning would be about half way through.

The stuff I'd want to make these are usually the weird, outlandish, "did this really happen?" sort of things that I don't think people are aware of. and that's not the point of the sets at all. Nor should it be. So that Big Sky vs Van Hammer didn't make the 93 set, or Dusty in a Witch's hat didn't make the 95 set, well.. that's okay. I'd probably even be okay with Piper v Perfect not making the 90 set, because really, how important/essential IS a throw-away house show match that just happens to be one of the best matches either guy had in the Fed in the face of everything else that happened that year?

In 1989 Beefcake main evented Summerslam. On that card, the only faces at his level or higher (discounting Demolition) were Hogan, Duggan and Warrior. Summerslam 1999, the top faces were: Austin, Mankind and Rock. With Kane probably trailing behind.

To me one of the biggest issues is whether or not we have two major belts. It's pretty obvious to me that guys like Swagger/Christian/Henry/Jeff Hardy wouldn't have won the Championship if there was only one belt, but I think guys like CM Punk/Booker/JBL and yeah, probably Edge would be doubtful too. The Brand Split doesn't just mean there's a second belt for someone else to get. It also dilutes the brands so that a guy lower in the card is instantly boosted up.

WWF - 8/24/96 - Toronto - Shawn Michaels vs Goldust - Ladder Match http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x648yr_sh...ladder-ma_sport Better VQ but only 2/3 of the match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwPrrO-p32o I can see why this match is slept upon. The term "ladder match" creates a certain set of expectations, and those expectations were even more prevalent a few years ago. In this match the craziest bump has nothing to do with the ladder and there's only one real jump off of it. The first half of the match, the ladder doesn't even come into play. It's still really good though, and in some ways more structured and better than most ladder matches. Michaels' intensity in the beginning is great. I've seen very little WWF in 96, actually, so I'm not sure if he started most of his matches with that or not. He has this brutal looking chairshot early on when Goldust is going for the ladder the first time, which sort of explains why the ladder doesn't play much of a role for the first half of the match (as Dustin paid bigtime for trying to get it too early). Dustin's punches and general offense look great. Michaels bumps big for him, including one crazy no-hands catapult over the top rope. When the ladder comes into play it's mainly just a prop that Dustin uses to enhance his attack on Michaels' back and he finds smart ways to use it that aren't all that dangerous but look really good. The teases of the finishers are fun for the time. One transition where Goldust sidesteps a roll up in the corner is actually pretty neat. They do a good job at cutting off comebacks and timing everything well. I wish Shawn didn't do this floatover out of a move (twice Curtain call, once slam, once suplex) as a reversal. Three times sort of worked and led into the finish. Four times frustrated me. It's a fancam and cuts now and again towards the end but it's minimal and you can generally figure out what little bits you missed with ease (though at one point Shawn gets his foot stuck in the rope and I kind of wish what happened immediately thereafter had been retained). All in all, a really fun ladder match.

Basically, if you're going to push it, articulate it.

I really need to get back to 08 ECW. I started it and then got distracted by... I'm not even going to say what I got distracted by because it's so outside my usual oeuvre that it borders on the unbelievable. And I'm also not sure if I'm even capable of sticking with it. ECW 08 is much more in my wheelhouse.

Wahoo.