Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Flipped Your Opinions


Kronos
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I first joined this forum almost 3 years ago, I was obsessed with women's wrestling. I couldn't get enough deevers, joshi, shimmer, knockouts, all of it.

 

Sometime in early 2010, I completely lost interest. I'm just not down with chick rasslin much anymore. It kind of got me to wondering: What styles, workers, eras, etc do you now feel the opposite about? It doesn't have to just mean going off of an old favorite. Maybe you hated and now love it. I'm just always curious what shifts occur, especially for people who have been watching for years and years and years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know what you'd call it, maybe ROH style indy matches. You know, the big, epic, 2.9 stuff with a million killer moves. I lost interest in that a couple of years ago. I seriously think that it coincided a bit with the Benoit stuff. I just came to appreciate a more "old-school" style. Something a little less dangerous. I guess the dvdvr 80's sets have influenced it, too. I can still get into a match that's a spectacle, but I just like stuff that's more smartly worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the biggest two reversals for me have been Ron Garvin and Bob Backlund

 

I used to think Ron Garvin was a boring act, probably because as a kid he just seemed like some dude that would randomly appear for a bit and then disappear into an act or another company or whatever. I wrote him off. Then a few years back I watched his match with Big Bubba from one of the big Crockett shows and absolutely loved it. Thought it was aberration at first, but then I saw the Valentine matches, re-watched the Flair matches, and then the holy grail were the Tully matches. He was also a great tag wrestler. Stiff, good on the mat, versatile, and fiery as a hell. One of the my favorites now.

 

Backlund I'm not as high on as John or others who have been pimping him over the years. He can still really annoy me in a match at times, and there are a lot of guys I would rather watch before him. But it is impossible to argue that the guy "sucked," "couldn't work," et. For years I absolutely hated Backlund but watching a lot of his stuff for the SC WWE poll radically changed my view of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the biggest two reversals for me have been Ron Garvin and Bob Backlund

 

I used to think Ron Garvin was a boring act, probably because as a kid he just seemed like some dude that would randomly appear for a bit and then disappear into an act or another company or whatever. I wrote him off. Then a few years back I watched his match with Big Bubba from one of the big Crockett shows and absolutely loved it. Thought it was aberration at first, but then I saw the Valentine matches, re-watched the Flair matches, and then the holy grail were the Tully matches. He was also a great tag wrestler. Stiff, good on the mat, versatile, and fiery as a hell. One of the my favorites now.

Pretty much my only exposure to Garvin is one night watching some NWA-TV on justin.tv -- I think Garvin (he had a blonde flat-top, right?) was in a tag match that may have had Manny Fernandez in it. It was pretty fun, although nothing to write home about (not that what I have seen of the studio matches ever really is groundbreaking for that era).

 

 

Backlund I'm not as high on as John or others who have been pimping him over the years. He can still really annoy me in a match at times, and there are a lot of guys I would rather watch before him. But it is impossible to argue that the guy "sucked," "couldn't work," et. For years I absolutely hated Backlund but watching a lot of his stuff for the SC WWE poll radically changed my view of him.

About a year ago, I watched a Backlund-Patterson cage match on youtube. I should look that one up again. I recall it really being amazing in how simple and yet effective they worked it. Both of them sold perfectly and built a lot of drama and intensity (hehe, "intensity" would please WildPegasus). Bob has definitely grown on me -- not least because of the pimping you mention. For me, it's a bit tough to watch him in an era when you have Dusty, Piper, Flair, Superstar, Slaughter, and others who bring so much dynamic character work. Bob's bland babyface has to grow on you, even though he is probably a far better technical wrestler than almost anyone at the time. Put him in the ring with someone who has those skills or else who knows how to lay out a match (like Pat P), and you get magic. Or work him in Japan where the character stuff can be better presented non-verbally, and you get magic.

 

That's my experience, anyway. Obviously, mileage varies. And later when he becomes crazy "Mr Bob", then he's a lot more dynamic (if a little cartoony).

 

EDIT: Found the Patterson cage match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F81a0nBRVRc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Andre was overrated, and just got respect because of WM3 and so on.

 

Then I started seeing the late 70s/early 80s stuff from Japan...

I agree about that stuff. It turned me around, though I doubt I have seen as much as you by a long shot.

 

I recall a WCCW match from early 83 or late 82 that first made me reconsider. It was a battle royal, and I had never seen Andre move like that because I had really only seen his work from 1987 to the end. It amazes me how much he declined in 4-5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backlund I'm not as high on as John or others who have been pimping him over the years. He can still really annoy me in a match at times, and there are a lot of guys I would rather watch before him. But it is impossible to argue that the guy "sucked," "couldn't work," et. For years I absolutely hated Backlund but watching a lot of his stuff for the SC WWE poll radically changed my view of him.

I never pimp his as a Great Worker, nor have I tried to sell anyone on that concept.

 

I have tried to sell people on exactly what you're saying: he didn't "suck", he wasn't a guy who "couldn't work", that he didn't "need to be in there with a good worker to have a good match", etc.

 

I do think he was a great worker of holds in that era (mid 70s through 1983). He knew how to work a ton of different holds, know how to work them in a way that engaged the crowd, and know how to work up-and-down in them in a variety of ways that picked up the crowd, be it breaking things up with a high spot or two before taking it down, or simply work "I'm Out... I'm Out... I'm Out... Noooo... I'm Back In!" to tease breaking the hold. He would work hold well with guys we don't think of as good old workers (Hogan for example), and could *really* work holds with those would could go in them(Inoki for example). He could work goofy, funky holds and counters that are close (though not stlystically as cool) as Billy Robinson's, he could go traditional old school in the range you'd see from the Funks/Briscos or Destroyer, or he could do stuff that we might think of as goofy in a late-80s into 90s context but I suspect we'd find not only common but also heat drawing in a lot of places prior to that. I'm think of his "rowing of the arm" against Muraco which got the crowd into a hold. Does anyone think Bob invented that? No... he just got trained it or picked it up and incorporated it.

 

Does saying he was "great" in that area mean I think he was a "great worker". No. Bruce Bowen was a great defensively at his peak. Does that mean he was one of the great players in the NBA? No. Good role player, great defensive player, valuable contributor to championship teams.

 

One hopes people can't parse things out like that.

 

Bob had other positives, which I tend to point out as well. He was in a lot of good-to-excellent-to-great matches, and he was more than holding up his own end of them.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rock, as I was watching stuff for SC Greatest Wrestler Ever poll. I never like The Rock during the Attitude Era. I thought he was a mediocre worker, I hated the product as he was really pushed to the top (1999). Rewatching shitloads of stuff, including a lot of post 2000 material I had never seen before (having stopped watching WWF in 99), I became a big fan, really opened my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy flip-flopping on wrestlers on a weekly basis, but the conclusion I've come to is that you have to be into the rhythm of whatever you're watching. Whenever I watch a big batch of stuff for a poll, I always have an easier time getting into a style/company than if I'm just watching a one-off match where I may not be in the right mood.

 

With that in mind, recent shifts would be enjoying Inoki and Choshu's work on the NJPW set (with some reservations) and realising, for the first time, that Fujinami was a first class worker. With the WCW poll over at Smarkschoice, Arn stood out as a far better singles worker than people gave him credit for in the early 90s. I also grew to like Steamboat more than ever before after watching all the Dangerous Alliance stuff. That's a little boring, though, so I'll throw Marcus Alexander Bagwell out there as a tolerable guy when he first hit the scene.

 

With my shootstyle thread, Carl Greco is my favourite discovery, but that's not really a flipped opinion. I also have a European wrestling thread, and as far as that goes I'm past the point of being excited over Johnny Saint and Marc Rocco. Regarding lucha, I'd pick Perro Aguayo and Los Hermanas Dinamita as workers I like more than I ever did before (particularly Universo 2000.)

 

As for guys I like or have liked in the past who I'm down on -- Owen Hart's stock continues to drop for me (I was a huge Owen fan growing up), Regal's WCW TV run is a world of disappointment, I don't like a lot of Finlay's Euro stuff once he shacks up with Princess Paula, I think El Hijo del Santo is overrated, and I don't like Negro Casas' work from around '98 onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy flip-flopping on wrestlers on a weekly basis, but the conclusion I've come to is that you have to be into the rhythm of whatever you're watching. Whenever I watch a big batch of stuff for a poll, I always have an easier time getting into a style/company than if I'm just watching a one-off match where I may not be in the right mood.

I agree. It's a much better way to enjoy a style/wrestler/company. I don't watch one-off matches anymore, not that I was ever big on this to begin with.

 

With that in mind, recent shifts would be enjoying Inoki and Choshu's work on the NJPW set (with some reservations)

Well, coming from you, that's a pretty big shift. I first hated Choshu when I got into puroresu, then watching NJ TV from 89 to 91 quickly made me a big fan.

 

Most recent negative shift from me is probably Lance Storm. I want to like the guy, but when he's having the lesser match of every guy he works with, well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's a much better way to enjoy a style/wrestler/company. I don't watch one-off matches anymore, not that I was ever big on this to begin with.

Really? Interesting. So you're not likely to youtube a match that you might have seen people discussing, because it's a one-off?

 

I can see the point. If one jumps from AJPW 1994 to RAW 1994 (or vice versa), it would be a pretty big culture shock. But then once you get used to the flow, you can appreciate better what's happening. The match works better in context of a worker's development or an ongoing angle or a direction the whole company is taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you'd call it, maybe ROH style indy matches. You know, the big, epic, 2.9 stuff with a million killer moves. I lost interest in that a couple of years ago. I seriously think that it coincided a bit with the Benoit stuff. I just came to appreciate a more "old-school" style. Something a little less dangerous. I guess the dvdvr 80's sets have influenced it, too. I can still get into a match that's a spectacle, but I just like stuff that's more smartly worked.

Agreed. I can enjoy a flippy-dippy or massive head-dropping match as much as the next fella. But I can't tell you how long it's been since I sat through a whole ROH disc (or other indy-tastic shows, for that matter). One exception might be Chikara, but only when I am in the mood. And primarily, the difference is that the guys in Chikara - the whole promotion, in fact - just doesn't take itself so deadly earnestly. It's all kind of a joke, and so it makes me smile.

 

Whereas ROH, a lot of PWG and JAPW, IWA, DGUSA, SHIMMER, and the wannabes all take the kind of "intensity" approach that Resident Evil loves so much. I get tired of that very quickly, just as I weary of endless spotfests in the X-Division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I really hadn't watched a ton of Andre, but almost all was at the end of his career.

End of career Andre is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen a guy more limited in his ability to move but who made so much of what he had (which was quite a bit, just not conventional). He seemed to know what to do in every second of every match to make a match effective. And his selling and expressions were just great. I think, for instance, the Warrior/Andre SNME match (which I think was WON worst match of the year) was REALLY smartly put together, and don't get me started (again) about the MSG House Show between Colossal Connection and Demos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I really hadn't watched a ton of Andre, but almost all was at the end of his career.

End of career Andre is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen a guy more limited in his ability to move but who made so much of what he had (which was quite a bit, just not conventional). He seemed to know what to do in every second of every match to make a match effective. And his selling and expressions were just great. I think, for instance, the Warrior/Andre SNME match (which I think was WON worst match of the year) was REALLY smartly put together, and don't get me started (again) about the MSG House Show between Colossal Connection and Demos.

 

Yeah. I LIKE Hogan-Andre at Mania, too. For my part, I was just shocked at how much more mobile he was just a few years earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's a much better way to enjoy a style/wrestler/company. I don't watch one-off matches anymore, not that I was ever big on this to begin with.

Really? Interesting. So you're not likely to youtube a match that you might have seen people discussing, because it's a one-off?

Nope, I never do that.

 

I can see the point. If one jumps from AJPW 1994 to RAW 1994 (or vice versa), it would be a pretty big culture shock. But then once you get used to the flow, you can appreciate better what's happening. The match works better in context of a worker's development or an ongoing angle or a direction the whole company is taking.

Well, if we're talking about a particular year, like they do with the 1996 yearbook, it's different but it would also works for me I guess, because it covers the spectrum of what was happening at the same time in different promotions and style. But yeah, I'm not watching isolated matches anymore. I was doing it in the mid-90's when it wasn't so easy to download tons of stuff, especially to catch up with WWE stuff I had missed in the 00' and also some big japanese matches, but I grew tired of it, it wasn't satisfying to me. I think I actually stopped watching wrestling for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed that before, but I'm really into a watching things in context phase right now. I'd rather spend an hour watching a syndi show full of wimpy matches than 2-3 great out of context matches. It just fits my watching habits and attention span better right now. I'm fine jumping around though.

 

I'm watching 85 NWA, early 93 USWA, fall 93 WCW, and spring 92 WWF right now all at once (and a little current FCW when I get around to it too). It's not that jarring. Well, going back to the spring 92 WWF stuff is tough but that's only because I JUST hit my last MSG card so I'm looking at ONLY Syndies and PPVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People I flipped my opinion over the years:

 

Baba - thought he sucked. Actually a better worker than the old consensus. Physical issues, but pretty smart in knowing how to work a match. More active when younger, surprisingly so at times. Pretty smart when you look at all the things he added over the years. There really wasn't any need for Baba to add a DDT to his moveset, but he did. If you track stuff like that over his career, it's pretty interesting in how open he was to stuff. At his best and in the context of his time, he's not terribly different from Taue at his best and in the context of his times.

 

Backlund - thought he sucked when seeing him in the 80s, and the early 90s. Hoback pushed him for years as being better than I gave him credit for. Yohe didn't hate him as much as I did. Turning point was Frank's "Backlund & More" tape. Not just good matches on there, but good comps of opponents working with other wrestlers. A Bob-Dusty to compare with a Dusty-Inoki. Patterson-Bob and a Patterson-DiBiase. Several others like that. It was an invitation to start thinking more about his work. Will set was several years after that, and of course fab.

 

Brody - an iconic dead guy when I started reading the WON. Like everyone else at the time, he was on the list of guys to get tapes of when I started getting old tapes. Wild juice filed matches, they were interesting to watch at the time. Changed over time. Remember one of the early things was Yohe tossing out an off hand comment at a diner on a Lucha trip about Hansen being better than Brody, even when they were teaming. That wasn't a commonly held opinion at the time, and wasn't agreed to at that meal. :) More stuff popped up as we would watch tapes at PPV get togethers. I'm not sure when I started actively ripping Brody... seems like most of the last decade. Don't know if I'd go so far as to saw he's awful. He certainly was very effective at times, but you could say that about Hogan... more often, in fact. He did "cool stuff", lik bleed all over the place and act like a nutty wild man. But he also did a ton of things that other got/get ripped for, but Brody skates on. He does any number of things that are awful. :)

 

Hogan - Hulk was the Anti-Flair, and as a Flair Fan it meant I hated him and his matches. Even when I enjoyed his Hollywood Hulk stuff, I still couldn't stomach watching his Rock'n'Wrestling Era WWF Hulk stuff. I actually don't mind his matches from that era now. Don't think I pimp any of them as being great, but a lot of them are pretty effective in what they do, and some are pretty entertaining. Hogan was a pretty effective worker, and got more dialed into what worked for him as time went by in the WWF. Some of the 1984 stuff is a little formless. A couple of years later, he has a few different templates down for working Hogan Matches to roll out depending on need.

 

Tito Santana - never thought he sucked, just thought he was a typically boring WWF worker. Watching stuff for the SC WWF Poll and other things, he actually was a very solid worker. I don't just look forward to seeing his matches now, but I also get disappointed when they turn out not to be good (like his stuff with Muraco). You don't get disappointed by bad workers: you just tune out.

 

Rick Rude - at the time, he didn't do much for me in the small bit of World Class I was able to catch before he jumped. His Crockett stuff didn't do anything for me, and at the time I was more enjoying how Manny went from bland, boring face to solid heel. His initial WWF stuff didn't do much for me. I thought the Summer Slam match with Warrior was good, but it and a few others felt like more exceptions than the rule. Then he jumped to WCW, and suddenly was "good". Very good. So change #1. What was interesting is that when I went back and watched some of the WWF stuff, Rude didn't "get good" in WCW, but was good in the WWF. Maybe there was an added level of confidence in his work that he developed in WCW (bigger fish in a non-Hogan, non-Savage, non-Flair pond)... but he was good in the WWF. One of the things that I look forward to in the Crockett set is to see how good he was in that run. Dittos in the Texas stuff.

 

Ken Patera - Only saw his "comeback" way back when, and he seemed like a fish out of water after the time in the slammer. Just didn't think he was any good. Saw the Backlund-Patera match at some point in the early 90s since it was WON MOTY, but it didn't make a mark on me: was still in my mode of not liking the WWF, and Backlund. As I watched more WWF, my thought is that he was a terrific heel in 1980. Not just coming around to thinking he was "good", but that he was pretty much a total package of heel stuff in that year.

 

Lots of other people like that.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I really hadn't watched a ton of Andre, but almost all was at the end of his career.

End of career Andre is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen a guy more limited in his ability to move but who made so much of what he had (which was quite a bit, just not conventional). He seemed to know what to do in every second of every match to make a match effective. And his selling and expressions were just great. I think, for instance, the Warrior/Andre SNME match (which I think was WON worst match of the year) was REALLY smartly put together, and don't get me started (again) about the MSG House Show between Colossal Connection and Demos.

 

This post is so good it has made me come out of PWO retirement. End of career Andre was SOOOO underrated. I remember enjoying Warrior vs Andre and Kronus is right.

WMIII's main event ruled. I've watched that over 10 times and I could watch it aother 100 easily.

 

As far as the intensity approach goes, it's gotta be legit. There are wannabes out there. But if one does tire of watching too many all out matches, it means they have been watching too much wrestling and need to take a break and do other stuff before coming back again.

 

As for the original quesiton, I've never flip flopped my opinion on anyone. Some I have changed slightly on but flip flopped? Can't think of anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original quesiton, I've never flip flopped my opinion on anyone. Some I have changed slightly on but flip flopped? Can't think of anyone.

Really? Even going back to something 20-30 years after you first watched it?

 

You've never flipped your thoughts on a book or movie or record you liked or hated when you were a kid?

 

There's a lot of stuff that I read or watched in college and enjoyed, and now wonder why the hell I was thinking. The old "I was drunk/stoned/high those years" only goes so far. :)

 

Or stuff when younger. An example:

 

One of the HD channels just aired the debut of the second season of Charlie's Angles. Late night, wasn't sleeping and just killing time flipping channels until I was tired enough to fall asleep. I came across "Angels in Paradise", the first episode after FFM left and it took me back to the summer of 1977 when it first aired. I was 11, and one of the hot topics of the summer was how they were going to replace FFM, who was the hottest thing of all-time (for that year). So this was some major shit at the time. And of course they replaced here with Cheryl Ladd, who became a big star (relatively speaking) in her own right.

 

I've always held the memory that for us 11 year old boys that was a great freaking pair of episodes, and that on Thursday at school we were buzzing about the awesomeness of them and the newest Angel.

 

Some I'm watching Angels in Paradise, and it's pretty damn bad. Jackie is as classy looking as always. Ladd is kind of spunky, but trying to fit in. Kate Jackson is the "leader", the smart one... but she looks fucking WIRED through the hole episode.

 

So I'm not quite getting it... why was this such a big thing for us back them. So I set the DVR to record the second part the next night, since I had no plans to stay up that late again.

 

And I'm watching that one, and it's about as bad as the first half. The guest stars, working a bad fake Italian mob gimick, are horrible. I forgot to mention it was set in Hawaii, and the locals are written in cringe worthy fashion. I'm really scratching my head.

 

Then comes "rescue" time, since the whole plot of the two-parter was the Charlie had been kidnapped and taken to Hawaii with the Angels going to rescue him. He's being held off shore in a yatch by the mobsters. So rescue time... out at sea... with a boat...

 

Posted Image

 

And 33 years later, I remember why it was such a big deal to us 11 year old boys and the episode was great:

 

Cheryl Ladd in the rescue section running around the yatch in a bikini looked GREAT~! in a 1977 context for dumb ass kids just figuring out that girls are GREAT~!

 

That the show was pretty weak, really laughable at times didn't matter. It's not what we were watching for. We wanted to check out the New Angel, and she was off the hook.

 

Having rewatched it for the first time in 33 years, I can say:

 

* Charlie's Angels was another weak 70s show that doesn't age too well

 

* it's got a lot of company along those lines

 

* it was hardly the worst of the old T&A TV that it spawned

 

* Cheryl Ladd does look rather exceptional

 

* I greatly underestimated how great Jackie Smith looked in a bikini as well... but Ladd would have been quite distracting to an 11 year old because her strengths were more obvious shall we say, while Jackie is the type you come to appreciate more as you age

 

Okay, so I've drifted away from the topic and risk Will and Loss getting annoyed with this... but there's a point behind the analogy:

 

I think most of us change or opinions on different things over the years. No doubt there are some that were continue to hold and reafirm. But there are always things we wonder "What in the hell was I thinking?" or realize "Ah... that's what I was thinking... yeah, kinda funny."

 

I think the applies to wrestling as well.

 

I'd think you've watched wrestling long enough, RE, for that to have happened on at least some things. Or perhaps give it another ten years.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys.

 

I'm going to hold off from explaining why I think Hogan's big matches in the late 80s/early 90s didn't fit into templates but instead followed a rather straight evolutionary path. Obviously no good will come of it.

 

Bring it. I love it when people get into fights on this forum because it means a lot of traffic and some interesting opinions. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...