Matt D

So much GWF lately. It's surprisingly awesome but still..

Who would induct Mick? The Rock? Terry Funk? Taker? Vince? Edge? HHH? Talk about a guy with almost endless choices. Hell I could make an argument for Rip Rogers.

On the one hand it's a complete and utter personal preference thing, so I can't really mount a counter argument. All I can do is respect the explanation. On the other, the sheer subjective nature there makes me feel like we're judging an iron chef contest or something in examining the match. That's what it made me think of, so that sort of amused me. The only answer I'll give is that they were very adaptable and did what the match called for, including, amazingly enough, begging off against the Hart Foundation at Summerslam 88, and it was tremendously striking when they did and put over the Harts as huge superstars. It was what the match called for. Now then, Blackjack Lanza or Jay Strongbow or whoever put the on the card is the one that we're going to have stern talking to for your negative impression of it, lack of mindblowing offense aside. Or I guess maybe Rene Goulet, but I'd just feel sad yelling at him. For starters i remember him as the "Hey! Who the hell is that guy who always shows up!" guy who I'd ask my clueless dad about as a kid. And he's also REALLY withered right now.

The heel in peril thing is fairly unique with the Brainbusters matches when it comes to the Demos and that has a lot to do with the structure of the story they were trying to tell. The first match was the Busters being unable to beat them and infuriating the Demos to force the DQ in order to save their lives. The second match (which is what you saw) is a revenge-driven house show match which is basically about Demos destroying them but not getting the belts. I think if Demos were going over more cleanly, they'd tell a story where they were careless from the anger and the Busters capitalizing on that. But it's pretty much the match they should have worked for the crowd they were in front of during the midst of the story. Which is tricky. The third is the two-three falls match and more balanced anyway. But Brainbusters should have a harder time GETTING on top in the beginning of the match against Demos than the Twin Towers or Powers of Pain, just due to the size difference, no? As for the "state of the art offense" talking point, it's not really my talking point at all, so I'm not going to argue it much. My talking points are above. I'm sorry you didn't like the Twin Towers match more. I think it shows how adaptable the Demos were (in that they not only played FIP but did so in a way that made you check one off in the Southern Tag Category) even if you didn't think it was a great match in itself. I think what's most interesting to me is watching all three Demos/Towers matches and watching how the match changes night to night but again, I can see why you wouldn't do that.

Well, that was apparently a long, painful night of three pages of posts that I'm tremendously glad I slept through. Anyway, my talking points are slightly different. I don't think that Demos are the best ever. I also don't think that their highs are necessarily higher than other people's. To me, that was never the point of going through the matches, though I can see how it would be easy to get too close to the source material certainly especially after putting the work in. The entire point of how great Demolition is is summed up in two words really, Consistency and Variation. I think I summed it all up 9 or 10 pages ago and I'm not sure why we're even still on the subject, since the people who disagree with me on this disagree about what makes wrestling good, which is fine but there's not going to be any convincing anyone of anything, as is pretty damn obvious at this point. But what I found is that they weren't necessarily great over one or two matches, but when you watch the lot and see that they almost never do the wrong thing or never do anything for the sake of doing it or never ever fail to make the opponents work for what they're doing. When you see those trends over time, they really stand out. There are nights were Bret is lazy or where Arn falls to doing a few spots that don't make any sense because he likes to stooge too much or where Dynamite takes WAY too much offense because he thinks he deserves it or something. I'm not going to say that they're the best ever, but I've never seen a team better at staying focused and on task and on the story of the match and that I've never seen a team that changed things up, not necessarily when it came to moves, but when it came to the specific story of the match, even on a night to night basis. Does that make Demolition the best ever? No. Does it make them unique to me and am I impressed by it? Absolutely. And it's not something that you'll spot in watching four or five matches (though you can see how well they could adapt in different situations, sure). The whole is so much greater than the sum of its parts. It's like the reverse of watching too many Ric Flair matches. Am I going to ask you guys to watch all of the matches? No. I did it for you a couple of years ago, because only through examining a large body of work do the most important things come to the surface with this particular team. If you do, I think you'll come to be impressed in the same way I was. But it's okay if you don't. There's only so much time in the world. But that's what I feel and why I feel like I do. I obviously can't talk for Vic. I was trying to raise their profile as workers because that stuff stood out so much to me and no one ever, ever talked about it. Now, can we please move on to something else. Like comparing the two MX squads and the Heavenly Bodies or something.

Dylan, you should watch Hart Foundation vs US Express (Spivey version). It's got an awesome finish out of nowhere. Worth seeing just for that. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xczqpa_ha...ress_shortfilms I think it's that one. Might be the other one (the boston one) but I can't load that one right now.

I actually sometimes get more impressed when they turn a blown spot into an opportunity than if they had pulled off whatever they had planned in the first place. Edit: I started to write something but it was turning into War and Peace so I stopped.

Have the obits traditionally been done in that light? Or do they work on a somewhat different level than the usual WON articles?

1.) You really don't want me to get any work done today, do you? 2.) I think already straight off from post #2, we're already diving into a tricky area when it comes to "in ring" vs "out of ring and in ring as a total package." I actually think that this is going to be one of the biggest problems we're going to deal with here. I look at matches for structure and fairly analytically (and yes, I'm going to expand upon this later, once I get some work done and can rationalize it), BUT I also try to look at things in context. I'd rather watch an entertaining hour of wrestling TV than 3 isolated excellent matches. Matches often only make sense in context, within their program, within their match series, within their specific show. For example, the Vader vs Duggan match from Starccade 94 cannot be understood at all unless you realize that they're holding back some traditional big man spots due to Sting vs Avalanche later in the night. But none of that really deals with the divide listed above. I'll give a real answer later.

I think he already needed surgery when he worked the Dome Show and had a great match with Inoki. Vader debuted later in the month at the Royal Rumble, then worked the following RAW, and was off the road for a few. So, I guess the timeline is right, unless he got surgery between the Dome Show and the Rumble. The other HUGE problem Vader has about 96 is that they ran Michaels vs Vader on house shows all around the loop before Summerslam 96 with Vader losing cleanly. So by the time the PPV hit the majority of the fanbase who would have ordered the PPV had already seen the match and a definitive result. The Vader shoot is pretty good.

Re: Vader's debut. I thought he had to go in for surgery or something along those lines. So he destroyed Monsoon and then they couldn't do much with him for a few months. I might have the timeline wrong.

1. I haven't really been involved lately because I don't really argue about Demolition's presence. I started the whole project to talk about the work since their presence is pretty fondly remembered on its own. I pretty much said what I had to say many pages ago. 2. There are some inseparable ravines here on what makes for good wrestling and why, and I think there are some moving goalposts too which are blurring matters and a lack of acceptance or attempts to understand. There's also some dismissal out of hand which is a shame, but that's how it goes. 3. And to reference the quote above. No. But that's already been covered. Dylan wrote an excellent post a few pages back on a whole school of thought of enjoying and appreciating wrestling and you'd do well to read it a few more times.

There are two things to keep in mind, Re: Repo Man. One is that he patterned the character after the Frank Gorshin Riddler. Two is that he really, really wanted to be a face with the character.

What role do you think the agents have in that?

They do everything right, while dealing with extreme confines that many of the other teams on this list probably wouldn't be able to deal with nearly as well, getting over to a large degree, both as faces and as heels, and putting forth a diverse range of matches where they can work as bullying heels, chickenshit heels, dominating faces, even-stevens faces, underdog faces, and blisteringly pissed off faces (see Brainbusters matches). And they do all of this while changing up the when and the how of what they do on an almost nightly basis, even against the same opponents, which is the one thing in wrestling that almost no one does regularly. I will say this about Demolition. They have good matches, yes, but they really shine when you look at their body of work as a whole. There are a number of wrestlers where that's the exact opposite or where problems start to creep in when you look at the body of work.

I don't want you to subscribe to critical orthodoxy, but it's nice to be on the same page. You linked to an argument that was almost completely moveset based, and that's just been seconded. The things Demolition did well, in bullet point format: Match structure: Both in variety and logical storytelling. Everything makes sense to a level that's almost absurd. If they do something in the ring (especially Ax, but by 88 Smash is pretty much there too) there is a reason for it. Nothing is done for the sake of doing it. Moreover, they change up their matches so frequently, even against the same opponents. There's no simple formula. The transitions are different. Playing their role: They make their opponents work for everything, but they also give exactly when they should give and exactly how much. This is why the heel-in-peril reasoning doesn't apply. Opponents even have to work their asses off to keep the armwork early on that's almost a given in 90% of all tag matches of the era(no matter where you are). And when it comes time to beg off or to do that arm work themselves (the 88 Harts match and Twin Towers series respectively), they do it. They have different matches with different opponents and look at how they turn up the steam in that Rockers match. I think that some of it was really protecting their characters, but they were giving too. Making their opponents better only made them look better as well either in a win or a loss. Timing: One thing they always made their opponents work for was the hot tag. It almost never came immediately after the first babyface comeback or exactly where you'd think it would come in anyone else's tag match. It lingered a few spots later and rose in intensity and heat because of that. They knew when to take over and end the shine sequences. They knew when to allow for babyface hope spots. They knew when to slow things down and when to go to the crowd. They knew when to tag and when not to. Doing so much with so little: They had relatively short matches. They had a very small moveset, though that just makes it all the more striking when Smash kicks out the Hotshot or what have you. But they make everything that they do matter and every second that they have worth something. If they're putting a neckvice on someone, it's not just a rest hold. There's a narrative reason for it within the match, and they're likely doing something else, as well, to engage the crowd alongside it. Obviously, some of this is subjective. People have different tastes, but I can at least recognize when something's done well, even if it doesn't hit my particular tastes (hell, I did that earlier in the posts where I admitted that Smothers' SMW promos were effective. They just weren't for me). The Demolition project came up organically. I watched a bunch of matches in chronological order amidst other things of the time and they really stood out to me and surprised me because I had a "Demolition = plodding and boring" preconception. Then I watched a whole bunch in a row and I was blown away. We started to see the patterns and we started to break down the matches to figure out exactly what made them tick. And there are absolutely patterns.

Neither here nor there, but I love the Hayes/Garvin Freebirds vs Dynamic Dudes match (which I think is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn6S-NmjPTU) because the crowd was so anti-Dudes that they were cheering with Hayes, and 1989 Michael P.S. Hayes loved nothing more than the crowd cheering for him and he was eating it up in the most hilarious way. I'm also partial to Freebirds + Badstreet vs Young Pistols + Dustin from the dreaded GAB 91, since that was the only tape I had at all as a kid, and it cut off in the middle of Sting vs Nikita so the fact that it's the best match on the card that I had puts it in a special nostalgic place. I also had a WCW magazine where they explained how Precious was actually the business manger for the Freebirds behind the scenes. (re: Demolition and childhood memories, since it came up, I started watching WWF in Oct of 1990 as a kid, so the only Demos I really knew as a kid were Smash/Crush and I hated them for being plodding since again, narrow-minded view).

The Southern Boys were really good and all but the Young Pistols, after the heel turn, were AMAZING. One reason I can't get myself to watch much SMW Smothers is because of the face turn where he turns his back on that run and embraces his podunk roots or whatever. Not for me. You are insane. The Tracy pre-tapes begging forgiveness for falling for big city scheming are incredible. Also Smothers was incredible in the ring in SMW. The best run of his career probably. I'm not insane. I'm just too much of a Nothern carpetbagger or something, I think. I don't doubt for a second that he wasn't awesome in SMW or awesome in that role. It just offends my sensibilities or something. Thankfully later in his career he comes to his senses and appeals to my Italian roots.

The Southern Boys were really good and all but the Young Pistols, after the heel turn, were AMAZING. One reason I can't get myself to watch much SMW Smothers is because of the face turn where he turns his back on that run and embraces his podunk roots or whatever. Not for me.

Unfortunately there is a dearth of great Orient Express matches, at least taped. There are the Rockers matches and the New Foundation match. The Demolition match is pretty weirdly laid out if I remember right. The Hart foundation match that aired is a glorified squash. The Power and Glory match isn't nearly as cool as it sounds. The MSG Haku and Barbarian vs Orient Express match turns out to be Kato and Fuji vs Barbarian and Haku, which is a damn shame. The Six man vs Kerry/Steamboat/Bulldog is a squash. The Rockers + Virgil vs Orient Express + Fuji match isn't very good. Like with PG-13, they had a very entertaining squash with The Roadies from memory. The big problem with the Orient Express is that by the time they came on the scene the aired Boston Garden/Philly Spectrum/MLG matches were already over and done with. It means we lose out at least four or five Rockers matches (one of which I was at live as a kid, I think), a couple of handicaps w/Fuji vs LOD, and some Bushwhackers matches which I actually wouldn't have minded seeing and a Shane Douglas/Marty Jannetty vs OX match. Actually, the 7/17/90 Rockers vs Orient Express MLG match made one of the "HOTTEST MATCHES" tapes. I wonder if I've ever seen that. OH! by all means, DO watch the Barbarian/Haku vs Fuji/Kato match though. Not a good match but it has some really neat and rare Heenan/Fuji stuff. I think it was set up the month before with Fuji guest managing the Barbarian or something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZIeW9XOyZw

Unfortunately there is a dearth of great Orient Express matches, at least taped. There are the Rockers matches and the New Foundation match. The Demolition match is pretty weirdly laid out if I remember right. The Hart foundation match that aired is a glorified squash. The Power and Glory match isn't nearly as cool as it sounds. The MSG Haku and Barbarian vs Orient Express match turns out to be Kato and Fuji vs Barbarian and Haku, which is a damn shame. The Six man vs Kerry/Steamboat/Bulldog is a squash. The Rockers + Virgil vs Orient Express + Fuji match isn't very good.

Look. Actually watch the matches and see how they're laid out. That they could do so much with such a limited arsenal of moves is absolutely amazing and is a point FOR them, not against them. That they changed up the matches that they were wrestling almost every single time out, even against the same opponents is mindblowing. Instead of just outright no-selling like people remember them doing, they instead made their opponents work for everything they got out of them and the end result makes for astoundingly logical matches. Here, if you can stomach dailymotion (protip: use firefox with the proper combination of ad and script blockers), we've got a ton of matches all set for you to watch. We did the work for you in finding them. http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=51663 Also, the Colossal Connection is one of the best WWF teams ever from their body of work. (granted, they only have a few Demos matches, a few squashes, and the Rockers match but still. Broken down Andre was the single smartest worker of all time). As for great Demolition matches. The 88 MSG Rockers match, the Twin Towers series, 88 Summerslam vs Harts, the MSG Colossal Connection match, and the Brain Busters series all have matches I'd consider great, especially considering the time constraints. Some of the Bulldogs matches are really good too. And for the most part, the heel-in-peril stuff doesn't happen much with Demos (save for maybe some of the longer Bulldogs matches) due to the aforementioned making their opponents work for everything.

I would say that sometimes the WWF had extended shine periods for their babyfaces or alternatively shorter heat periods on the face-in-peril than other places but some of that is an illusion due to the shorter match times in general. Some of it was giving the Northeastern fans what they wanted. I don't think it's quite as over the top as some people indicate.

I'm just a little baffled that you're here, trying to have a conversation with everyone, and using moveset as not just a argument, but as a primary reason to like or dislike a body of work. In 2011. Here. That's all. When I was 9, I thought that Hogan was TERRIBLE because he only punched and bodyslammed people. And then when on the UNREAL History of Professional Wrestling on A&E when Bruno or someone made that exact same comment, I felt so vindicated. Now, I like to think I look at things a little more openly. Moreover, I actually read the back and forths here. They're great. It's a great sight, and that's the last argument I'd make around here, because I'd look like a complete and utter ass in making it. As for late-career arguments, I think that they can really only help a wrestler/team in a situation like this. What you can do in a match after you can't resort to physical shortcuts says a lot about how good of a wrestler you are. But then I always put a lot more stock in working smart than working hard.

I may be biased but Bill Eadie is a god damn superworker.