jdw Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't think RINGS was a flashy promotion at all. Some of the matwork and exchanges may have been slick, but that has more to do with the workers' skills than the intent behind the promotion. UWF-I was far more manipulative with their points system, was more suplex and strike heavy, used pro-style gimmicks like tag matches, had Anjoh and Takada go around mouthing off and cutting promos on other companies, and was 100% style over substance. Nobuhiko Takada is the poster boy for style over substance. There weren't any 30 minute Tamura/Kosaka chess battles in UWF-I. The fact that they worked with New Japan and WAR says it all, but ideologically they had split from the founding ideas of UWF a long time before that. I don't really see much difference between UWF-I and Hustle in terms of motive. UWF 1.0 didn't have tags? They never did suplexes in UWF 1.0 and 2.0? The UWF gang didn't go back and work with New Japan when their company failed? UWF didn't work with gaijin "shooters"... like at their biggest show ever? I think the problem with assigning "founding ideas" onto UWF is that the whole concept was continually evolving. I think all of our heads spin when we look at the original starting roster of UWF 1.0. It was a company that eventually found a place for Sayama because they wanted to make money. Gerard Gordeau? Bob Backlund? Bart Vale? Dolman? Willie Wilhelm? Duane Koslowski? I think we want to hold up Maeda-Takada or Maeda-Fujiwara as the perfect example of the founding idea of UWF, but we need to accept that the founders, even the most Orthodox among them, weren't as narrow as we'd like to portray them. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm not justifying those as "correct" views that people took at the time. Just stating that those *were* the views at the time.That makes a lot of sense. I can certainly see people going with early UWFi over pre-Tamura RINGS. I mean, I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I agree with Ditch that having quality tv matches in the 98-99 era isn't really a big horn to blow as far as GOAT but I do think Rey has two things going for him that very few others have. 1. He had two very different eras that various people will identify as his peak. The 95-97 era where he was obviously a flashier worker doing things that virtually no one else on Earth was doing and I think generally becoming the favorite "flyer" of damn near everyone at the time. And then his current WWE run where his matches are much more so about traditional babyface work (I can already here the HE TOLD STORIES IN 96 TOO! crowd chiming in and we can have that debate again if we want but does anyone really doubt that his matches are more about selling, structure, et now than they were when he was working Psicosis?). I think he has a very sound claim for having been the best wrestler of the 00's as well which is a feather in his cap. 2. There is a very large composite of his career available going back at least as far as 93 to the present and with the exception of Russo WCW when literally NO ONE was any good (at least no one on the A shows) there has never been a point where Rey wasn't good and more often than not he was great. You could easily make the case Mysterio was the best worker in the promotion he was in more often than not over the course of the last fifteen years (not sure I would argue this, but the point is the argument could be made) - and these are feds that have included guys like Finlay, Regal, Benoit, Eddy, Danielson and others with big time reps. Anyhow the point is we have a HUGE portion of his career on tape, with virtually everything of note over the last sixteen years or so being documented and no matter the opponent or setting Rey always seems to look awesome accepting the aforementioned Russo period. With guys like Flair even most Flair marks will admit that he had dropped off dramatically by 95 at THE LATEST and his famed stuff in the 70's is mostly stuff of lore. Harley is another case like that though even more extreme. The same could be said of Terry Funk too. Lucha footage has always been thinner so far as I can tell. The Japanese guys and girls have tons of footage but aside from Tenryu, Liger, Kawada and maybe Misawa do any of them have runs of comparable length/quality to what Rey has? I do think longevity can be overrated in these sorts of discussions as peak performance is always what impresses most, but longevity + access to large amount of footage + peak/high quality performances throughout the vast majority of the career = possible GOAT....maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I don't see Thesz getting roped into Hustle, either... "Shoot-style" is a hard thing to judge restropectively, anyway. No one had any idea what an MMA match looked like in 1991, and if people want to buy "this is what real pro-wrestling looks like" line, they're going to hold its realism either for or against it. Takada wasn't that kind of shoot-style worker at all, even though I'd argue that some of his Yamazaki matches fit the whole "chess" bill as a formative form of Tamura/Kohsaka (which is surely, equally, more about technique than it is story). What I always liked about Takada/Yamazaki matches was the perceptions of momentum that I'd get. They'd almost be working control segments. Maybe that was just my own interpretation and we all know that when you actively look for something you can join the dots in such a way as to make them fit but... It is interesting how matwork perceptions have changed, though. People used to criticise Tamura for being too flashy, for "just going for stuff" (whilst accepting he had such technique to be able to pull it off), whereas Takada would "plot" his counters more. Something like that. I thought the first Yamazaki match had great methodical matwork. It's "lazy" compared to Tamura and Han, sure, but what isn't? I said in the Yearbook thread I prefer their first match as I've always found it had the best balance of technique and story/character (even if it's Han's default match with young-ish, flashy native). --- I spoke about Toyota in the Yearbook thread too... I don't think she's a GOAT candidate at all. Broadening the scope beyond "it has to be one of the All Japan guys", I'm not sure if any of the early '90s girls really have a case. Hokuto's run was far too short and hit-and-miss either side of '93, and she'd surely have the best case? Jaguar has one, of course, and when you tie in her time as trainer, how far ahead she was of just about everyone before her etc... it's probably the strongest. Chigusa was great, but I don't see a bigger push. The thing with Toyota though is, I think, people are in danger of using her "GOAT" cred against her. When appraising her you can't overlook that she did x things as good, if not better, than anyone, ever; she's elite for pure moveset/workrate, as a FIP, as a bumper, probably as a "hot tag" too (the problem is she'd play both Morton and Gibson herself). She might not be a complete worker but still... To Jerome: Totally with you on Yamada. Never even rated Hotta. Probably hate her more than you (the last show I watched was a massacre of Fukuoka from 7/4/93). To Ditch: The Kyoko draw is what it is. To try and do their match for an hour is just about the craziest match plan I've ever seen. That they managed it for nearly 50 of the 60 minutes is staggering. Of course it's overkill. That's kind of the point. It's the ultimate realisation of the "leave it all out there" old-timer cliche. It's not a "great" match in a traditional sense, by the end its a mess. I wouldn't change it, though. --- Rey is great, but his contendership as '00s WOTD says more about the '00s than it does him (without trying to sound like I'm discrediting him, like I said, he's great). He's not a GOAT candidate, though. I can understand someone making the case as he was, maybe is, one of the few great wrestlers around/alive/still working. As someone said, Eddie's the better US/Lucha crossover candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 --- Rey is great, but his contendership as '00s WOTD says more about the '00s than it does him (without trying to sound like I'm discrediting him, like I said, he's great). He's not a GOAT candidate, though. I can understand someone making the case as he was, maybe is, one of the few great wrestlers around/alive/still working. As someone said, Eddie's the better US/Lucha crossover candidate. About 00's wrestling, after watching the Texas Set (which I damn sure enjoyed) and the New Japan Set I am probably higher on the current product than ever before. I loved both sets but when I saw some of the matches that made those sets it really gave me an appreciation for what we have today. That sounds like an attack on the quality of those sets but it's not. The vast, vast majority of the matches that made the sets were good, with some absolutely blowaway great matches in there. Having said that there are plenty of modern WWE matches that would have done very well on my ballot. If I were to make a top ten Rey Jr. list from the last decade and stack it next to my TX top ten I'm almost positive the Rey matches would be stronger or at worst of comparable quality. Offhand I can think of four Chris Masters matches from last year that would have made the upper half of my Texas Ballot AT WORST and this is a guy that almost never makes the companies B Show. For shits in giggles my younger brother went through a WWE match list for each show from 09 the other day. He came up with 366 televised matches that he could remember being good. Going over the notes he sent me I found it extremely hard to dispute any of those matches and in fact probably would have included several more. 2010 would not have as high a number I would guess because of the absence of ECW, but I don't think it's out of the question that you could come up with another 250 quality matches that made tv last year. I don't think it's a stretch to say there have probably been between 1,000 and 1500 quality matches on WWE tv since the turn of the decade. I realize that Japan is a lot worse than it was and I'm not a guy who knows nearly enough about Lucha to make a claim one way or the other, but being the WOTD (other than Danielson is there even a serious contender?) in an era where there are more good tv matches week in and out than there has been in god knows how long (maybe ever?) is not something I feel can be dismissed casually. The Rey/Eddie comp is really tough and I think you could make the case that peak Eddie was better but I think every year that goes by the notion that Eddie is the better GOAT candidate has to take a bit of a hit. Not because Eddie ages poorly, but because Rey keeps on trucking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 About 00's wrestling, after watching the Texas Set (which I damn sure enjoyed) and the New Japan Set I am probably higher on the current product than ever before. I loved both sets but when I saw some of the matches that made those sets it really gave me an appreciation for what we have today. That sounds like an attack on the quality of those sets but it's not. The vast, vast majority of the matches that made the sets were good, with some absolutely blowaway great matches in there. Having said that there are plenty of modern WWE matches that would have done very well on my ballot. If I were to make a top ten Rey Jr. list from the last decade and stack it next to my TX top ten I'm almost positive the Rey matches would be stronger or at worst of comparable quality. Offhand I can think of four Chris Masters matches from last year that would have made the upper half of my Texas Ballot AT WORST and this is a guy that almost never makes the companies B Show. For shits in giggles my younger brother went through a WWE match list for each show from 09 the other day. He came up with 366 televised matches that he could remember being good. Going over the notes he sent me I found it extremely hard to dispute any of those matches and in fact probably would have included several more. 2010 would not have as high a number I would guess because of the absence of ECW, but I don't think it's out of the question that you could come up with another 250 quality matches that made tv last year. I don't think it's a stretch to say there have probably been between 1,000 and 1500 quality matches on WWE tv since the turn of the decade. I realize that Japan is a lot worse than it was and I'm not a guy who knows nearly enough about Lucha to make a claim one way or the other, but being the WOTD (other than Danielson is there even a serious contender?) in an era where there are more good tv matches week in and out than there has been in god knows how long (maybe ever?) is not something I feel can be dismissed casually. I don't even begin to have a valid opinion on anything in this note, but I would like to see this spun out into its own note, I think. Also, I think that Dan's comments back on the top of the last page should be spun out too, but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Fujinami flaming out after 1989 doesn't necessarily disqualify him from the conversation. From 1980 to 1989 (and at least a few matches from the WAR v NJ era) he was easily one of the best in the world. Should we consider an entire career Or does their fall have to be weighed equally? then Ric Flair is a damaged candidate because he has been sub-par from 1994-2010... 16 years of mediocrity. Personally, i think that is stupid because he had a decade of excellence with tons of footage from 82-92 that says he was every bit as good as advertised. Kawada had a great run but how has the last 5 years dropped his stock? Should the only candidates be guys who died early while still in their prime (Eddy) or shortly removed from it because of injury or illness (Jumbo or Bret) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 The peak v. longevity argument has been going on for fifteen years and I still don't know for sure where I stand on it. I can say that Fujinami would likely make my top fifteen if I were throwing together a list today. Maybe higher. Also worth noting that Fujinami v. Nishimura from in 06 is one of my favorite Puro matches of the last ten years even if it wasn't neccesarily one of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 You're higher on the current WWE product than I am, Dylan. I'm more accepting of it than Jerome, say, as I do still watch it (at least enough with which to form an opinion), but I find the matches dull. They're not bad, and *WWF/E* has had more good matches week-in/week-out (at least on television) in the last 10/12 years than at any other point in it's history, but they're all by rote. Was the "paint by numbers wrestling" a quip of Dan's? Everythings so programmed in. Set shine. Set cut-off. Set heat. Set-comeback. Set-finishing run. The matches are "good", but I find them uninteresting. Whilst I said it's a critique of the decade that Rey is a WOTD candidate (though that phrase fits Danielson better), it's also a testament to his talent that he still stands out as being a great wrestler in such an environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I understand what you are saying MJH as we have been down this road before. I will just repeat my standard position which is a. formula isn't bad and b. the notion that modern WWE is super cookie cutter and formulaic is drastically at odds with the facts. There simply is no way that a promotion that puts on matches as diverse as Rey/Punk, McIntyre/Hardy, Masters/Chavo, Lawler/Miz, Ziggler/Bryan, Goldust/Regal, et. deserves the "processed, packaged, plopped in your lap" label that certain people like to try and put on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Peak vs. Longevity is a BS argument. Density is infinitely more important than duration. I know I ruled out Hokuto for GOAT on the grounds of having too short a peak, but that was a really, really short period as a top worker. Even if we limit Misawa to 1994-1996, that's three times Hokuto's run (Dream Rush -> TLTB '93 with some time off for injury), equally as dense per annum in great matches (if not even moreso), and he had stronger surrounding years too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Who in the WWE doesn't have a set shine/comeback as a babyface? Doesn't have the same five or so spots they hit in the same order every match? What heel doesn't have the same resthold (FFS) and the same set of spots in their heat? It's not bad... but it's paint by numbers. Rey might throw in a more complex spot with a Jericho or Punk. Danielson may mix some other stuff in. But you can predict 95% of a match before it's happened, and in order. I mean, how many 619s did Rey hit/attempt in the Chamber, 10? It was a strong performance from him but really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I agree with that in theory but then the questions becomes what do you do with guys like Rey who have consistent runs of quality that might not meet the peak of certain other all timers but last far longer? I think that is peak v. longevity really becomes a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm sure Crockett produced better stuff week in week out. I'm watching 87 NWA on 24/7 and most weeks they produce two very good to great matches. That's not counting promos and angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Who in the WWE doesn't have a set shine/comeback as a babyface? Doesn't have the same five or so spots they hit in the same order every match? What heel doesn't have the same resthold (FFS) and the same set of spots in their heat? It's not bad... but it's paint by numbers. Rey might throw in a more complex spot with a Jericho or Punk. Danielson may mix some other stuff in. But you can predict 95% of a match before it's happened, and in order. Maybe I don't understand your criticism. Is your criticism that guys use the same offensive moves in similar order? Because that has been going on for the entire duration of wrestling history and honestly I don't see modern WWE being any better or worse in that regard than any other promotion. Look at the matches I listed. Stylistically and structurally it is hard to say "those are very similar matches." Take two others. Compare David Hart Smith v. William Regal to John Cena v. Dolph Ziggler. Pretty sure they happened within in a week of each other. I don't see a lot of similarities to those matches other than the fact that they both feature carbon based life forms, slathered in baby oil, grappling in shorts. Having said this I DO believe there is a WWE main event style and I have criticized it before despite the fact that I think on average it leads to quality matches more often than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm sure Crockett produced better stuff week in week out. I'm watching 87 NWA on 24/7 and most weeks they produce two very good to great matches. That's not counting promos and angles. I haven't watched Crockett tv in ages but I recall a lot of squash matches for a long time. I think 92 WCW would be a pretty good candidate offhand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Fujinami flaming out after 1989 doesn't necessarily disqualify him from the conversation. From 1980 to 1989 (and at least a few matches from the WAR v NJ era) he was easily one of the best in the world. Should we consider an entire career Or does their fall have to be weighed equally? then Ric Flair is a damaged candidate because he has been sub-par from 1994-2010... 16 years of mediocrity. Personally, i think that is stupid because he had a decade of excellence with tons of footage from 82-92 that says he was every bit as good as advertised.I do think a long run of uninspired work should weigh heavily against a candidate. You can adapt to physical limitations (Fujinami) or try to avoid becoming a skipping record (Flair). In Flair's case, he did SO MUCH in his peak run that even 15 mediocre years, many of them part-time at best, don't come close to overwhelming it. With Fujinami, not so much. Fujinami was clearly a great worker in the '80s, and heck he could go in the late '70s, but was there a Flair-like depth of great performances such that the second half of his career can be forgiven? Fujinami could have gone in a Tenryu direction or a MUGA direction and been very capable in the '90s; instead he was just sorta 'there' most of the time and on occasion he'd be carried to something more. The '06 Nishimura match, to me, shows what he could have done if his heart was in it. Kawada had a great run but how has the last 5 years dropped his stock? Should the only candidates be guys who died early while still in their prime (Eddy) or shortly removed from it because of injury or illness (Jumbo or Bret) ?How many Flair/Fujinami types are there, though? With Kawada, the weaker last 5 years is matched up against 16-18 good years. Jumbo was a good rookie and had 18-19 good years. Kobashi and Misawa worked to their physical limits after their peak and were reliable for a couple good outings a year. From what I gather, the lucha greats like Satanico aged incredibly well. Who else has 10-15 years of greatness followed by 10-15 years of middlin'? It's not about whether Fujinami had a great career, but whether it's better than the many wrestlers who didn't have that same career flaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Tito used to hate it when a heel wanted to outwrestle him at the beginning of a match because wrestling, to him, was "Shine, heat, comeback." And the heat had to start with the heel cheating to get an advantage. (and hey, this would be another good topic to spin out!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Is your criticism that guys use the same offensive moves in similar order? Because that has been going on for the entire duration of wrestling history and honestly I don't see modern WWE being any better or worse in that regard than any other promotion. Except they have set sequences rather than a set "moveset". Danielson doesn't just have the inside elbow/clothesline thing. He has a dropkick in the corner, switch on a whip, moonsaults over, hits the ropes, ducks a line and then hits the inside elbow/clothesline thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I see what you are saying I'm just not sure it's unique to modern WWE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Oh I don't think they're alone in it, just the (by far) worst culprit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 "Shoot-style" is a hard thing to judge restropectively, anyway. No one had any idea what an MMA match looked like in 1991, and if people want to buy "this is what real pro-wrestling looks like" line, they're going to hold its realism either for or against it. Who is no-one? The fans? Shooto had been around since '85 and turned professional in '89 with shows in 1990 and 1991, so at the very least the workers knew what a shoot looked like. If you mean the fans, then obviously they were riding the wave of the second UWF into the most attractive splinter promotion, which as John explained was not RINGS or PWFG. As for Rey, I wouldn't call myself a fan but I think he's had a remarkable career when you consider how it could've ended up at various points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 I haven't watched Crockett tv in ages but I recall a lot of squash matches for a long time. I think 92 WCW would be a pretty good candidate offhand. Squashes mixed usually with two competitive matches. For example one episode had a Luger vs Barry Windham and RnR Express vs Tully and Arn match that went close to thirty minutes. And that is just the TBS show and not including pro and Worldwide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I don't see Thesz getting roped into Hustle, either... There is that famous clip of Lou with the dog bone. "Shoot-style" is a hard thing to judge restropectively, anyway. No one had any idea what an MMA match looked like in 1991, and if people want to buy "this is what real pro-wrestling looks like" line, they're going to hold its realism either for or against it. I don't think anyone rating UWF-style stuff thought it was what real pro wrestling looked like. It was known to be a work forever. I think anyone who has seen real strikes (which was literally *everyone* back then) knew quickly that it was a work, and it's not like Dave played along with it being a shoot. I always thought it was odd that Dave didn't snowflake it... don't recall if he used them for the UWF 1.0 show he saw in his 1984 trip to Japan. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Peak vs. Longevity is a BS argument. Density is infinitely more important than duration. I know I ruled out Hokuto for GOAT on the grounds of having too short a peak, but that was a really, really short period as a top worker. Even if we limit Misawa to 1994-1996, that's three times Hokuto's run (Dream Rush -> TLTB '93 with some time off for injury), equally as dense per annum in great matches (if not even moreso), and he had stronger surrounding years too. It's been a long time since I read Coey's AJW pieces, but I think what people pointed to as the "Hokuto is Great" period started before Dream Rush. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.