Serious Greatest of All Time Candidates

[MJH]

Oh, I didn't mean people believed it was a shoot. Only that there was far less scope as to its "believability" then that there is now. I've heard far too much criticism of Takada's matches on the grounds that he did a spin kick or something similarly stupid; or that such-and-such was better because it/he holds up as more realistic-looking, etc...

[El-P]

Hokuto was pretty much a great worker as a Marine Wolf already.

[MJH]

Her earliest match with any real regard is the 1/91 match with Bull. There's some nice stuff before that, to be sure, I quite like the Chigusa match in March (I think) '89, and the tag match a month later. But there's nothing nearly as revered as her '93 stuff prior to Dream Rush. And there's no real great consistency to it either. Elements were there (especially the selling, that was there really early), but I don't think you can say she was at her peak until that point. The Hokuto of '91 through early '92 before she went to Mexico with Mita and came back as LCO/Dangerous Queen/bleached her/black outfit/etc, isn't a worker held up as a GOAT. You could say "great", but she was still on the way up. And she was hit-and-miss (and sporadic) once the retirement "road" started. Queendom's great; Big-Eggs a disaster. etc

[Dylan Waco]

How does Hokuto v. Kandori hold up? I have not seen in it ages

[Ditch]

How does Hokuto v. Kandori hold up? I have not seen in it ages

I'm not big on the first one but I think the second is underrated. Shoot punches to the face is not something that gets less brutal over time.

[Dylan Waco]

Also as far as GOAT with Joshi stars go I always thought Aja was the best candidate. I want to say I had her at 5 for the SC poll. She seems to have the best combo of peak/longevity and I think her peak holds up better than a lot of the others (I am kind of guessing here but when I watched the Nakano Cage Match it still held up as a hell of a spectacle if nothing else to take one random example).

[Loss]

I kind of get where Dave is coming from. From a historical point of view, the fact that Toyota's style is passé these days shouldn't really have an effect on her GOAT candidacy. You could actually argue that her style isn't dated at all, but that contrary to what Loss is saying, opinion on what makes a good worker/wrestling match has changed dramatically. Unless you want to argue that fundamentally she wasn't any good, which I think is unfair. I dislike Takada immensely, but there were stll things he was capable of. He just sucked on the mat.

I think you can look at something in context (which I support), acknowledge that certain things were done that worked at the time that wouldn't work in a different time and still have the match look good when watching it years later. I think sometimes the statement that any match can be compared to any match (which I thought years ago and still think today) is taken as the absence of context when that's not true at all.

 

I do agree that opinions have changed over time in terms of what makes a match good and bad. But what I'm saying is that you can compare two matches from any time period to each other because even if they are worked in different styles, good wrestling in 1970 was wrestling that made sense. Good wrestling in 2011 is wrestling that makes sense.

[jdw]

How does Hokuto v. Kandori hold up? I have not seen in it ages

I'm not big on the first one but I think the second is underrated. Shoot punches to the face is not something that gets less brutal over time.

 

I don't know... I tend to think they get less impressive as time goes by. I'm not a lightweight about stiffness, but the shoot punches strike me as big of jerk offs as the unprotected chairshots. It's easier for me to watch two guys who died in ugly fashions working a chinlock-centric match than watch Tanaka and Awesome plonk each other in the skull... or Foley eating punches in a masturbatory quest for realism. Hokuto bleeding all over the place in their first matches is easier to watch than Kandori and Hokuto being dipshits in the rematch. "Punched Him/Her Right In The Face" is one of those dated that's a goofy to read now as "Droped Him Right On His Head" has become.

 

John

[Loss]

MJH, I take exception to the idea that any changes in opinion over time are a "movement". New footage becomes available, then people watch it and comment on it. Sometimes, many people observe the same things. You might not mean it this way, but it sounds as if you're accusing people who like things like Jerry Lawler, punches and brawls of being opinion followers who are just saying these things because it's cool. Yes, the catalyst for a lot of the re-evaluation is a smaller group leading and a larger group following, but that was always the case with hardcore wrestling fandom. Many people reacting to the opinions on wrestling that others share by agreeing (or disagreeing) isn't dishonest or misleading in any way.

 

I guess there are probably people who do have certain opinions on wrestling-related things because other people do, but I would imagine those people are few and far between. It was never "trendy" to prefer one style to another, really. Both sides on contentious wrestlers and matches have typically been pretty outspoken.

[Ditch]

How does Hokuto v. Kandori hold up? I have not seen in it ages

I'm not big on the first one but I think the second is underrated. Shoot punches to the face is not something that gets less brutal over time.

 

I don't know... I tend to think they get less impressive as time goes by. I'm not a lightweight about stiffness, but the shoot punches strike me as big of jerk offs as the unprotected chairshots. It's easier for me to watch two guys who died in ugly fashions working a chinlock-centric match than watch Tanaka and Awesome plonk each other in the skull... or Foley eating punches in a masturbatory quest for realism. Hokuto bleeding all over the place in their first matches is easier to watch than Kandori and Hokuto being dipshits in the rematch. "Punched Him/Her Right In The Face" is one of those dated that's a goofy to read now as "Droped Him Right On His Head" has become.

 

John

 

A couple backyarders can swing chairs and throw potatoes, so there is something to that. But Hokuto vs Kandori did it the right way: the matches were built to, the punches were built to and used to maximum effect. No different than All Japan head drops really.

[jdw]

That was part of my point: All Japan head drops are no easier to watch now, especially as the add up.

 

John

[Ditch]

I'm sure if Hokuto and/or Kandori ate shoot punches as regularly as Misawa took head drops there would have been serious consequences. And I'm also pretty sure that if Misawa saved those bumps for the big shows he'd still be around. There's any number of things in wrestling that, done outside moderation, are needlessly risky. Doesn't make any instance of them masturbatory.

[El-P]

I wouldn't call Hokuto and Kandori exchanging a few shoot punches once masturbatory. I would call most of Foley's bullshit about getting potatoed by Vader or talking 10 unprotected chair shots to the head by Shane Douglas and redoing it with the Rock in front of a bigger audience (and his family) masturbatory and stupid.

Lioness Asuka vs Yumiko Hotta "shoot" match was a total masturbatory match. If you don't know how to make a shoot-style match look good without killing yourself and shoot-punching each other in the face, it doesn't mean you are tough and ballsy, it means you suck and are stupid.

Low-Ki kicking people as hard as he can because he's a mark for japanese yough style is masturbatory.

A great quote about from Rick Martel about Booker T (a notorious "dangerous" worker) "You need to convince the audience, you don't need to convinve me !". He talked about how Meng and the Barbarian who are two of legit toughest guy ever in the business being light as a feather in the ring, to the point you wouldn't feel them if they didn't want you to but still made things look great. This is also a criteria totally foreign to us when we judge workers, but a criteria that matters a lot to the actual workers. It's interesting to hear that Koji Kanemoto is considered one of the best worker in Japan by everyone because the guy, despite doing stiff kicks, is *safe as hell* apparently.

Should that criteria be used also when discussing the greatest workers ?

[ohtani's jacket]

Oh, I didn't mean people believed it was a shoot. Only that there was far less scope as to its "believability" then that there is now. I've heard far too much criticism of Takada's matches on the grounds that he did a spin kick or something similarly stupid; or that such-and-such was better because it/he holds up as more realistic-looking, etc...

Those are perfectly valid reasons for criticising Takada. Believability was the crux of the style. There's no reason to call it a "worked shoot" if it's not worked like a shoot. You can't argue that there was less scope for believability in 1991 when there are matches from 1990 and 1991 that run contrary to your claim. Takada wasn't interested in believability and I have my doubts over whether he was capable of it. The question of whether realism matters is up to the viewer, but that was certainly the intent behind the second UWF. I suspect people who still enjoy Takada's matches do so from "a shoot style is just another form of pro-wrestling perspective" and enjoy him as a pro-wrestler. That's their prerogative, but I don't think you can ignore the thrust of the movement just because you happen to dig Takada/Yamazaki matches.

[ohtani's jacket]

Should that criteria be used also when discussing the greatest workers ?

No. Aside from the fact that it dredges up the whole Lance Storm thing, it's better to let the workers have their own opinion on who they thought was good and leave well alone. It would be like rating directors based on who the actors thought was easy to work with.

 

The second Hokuto/Kandori match is pretty average.

[El-P]

Those are perfectly valid reasons for criticising Takada. Believability was the crux of the style. There's no reason to call it a "worked shoot" if it's not worked like a shoot. You can't argue that there was less scope for believability in 1991 when there are matches from 1990 and 1991 that run contrary to your claim. Takada wasn't interested in believability and I have my doubts over whether he was capable of it. The question of whether realism matters is up to the viewer, but that was certainly the intent behind the second UWF.

Since Takada became arguably the biggest draw in the 90's in Japan, either UWF-i fans were satisfied with the believability of Takada as the big star of their "worked shoot" promotion, either they didn't care about realism that much to begin with and had no problem with Takada not being "realistic" enough. No, these are not valid reasons for criticising Takada at all. UWF-i was pro-wrestling, period. It's like criticizing some mexican guy because is style is not lucha libre enough and does too much american style pro-wrestling spots are psychology while working in Mexico. If it works, that's all that matters. And Takada's style worked in spades, and drew shitload of money to boot. So, whatever the claim of the UWF and UWF-i being "realistic", their fan embraced Takada and didn't see any problem wih his "lack of realism". You really think Fujiwara is realistic ? Goofy headbeat galore. Nah...

 

I suspect people who still enjoy Takada's matches do so from "a shoot style is just another form of pro-wrestling perspective" and enjoy him as a pro-wrestler. That's their prerogative, but I don't think you can ignore the thrust of the movement just because you happen to dig Takada/Yamazaki matches.

Shoot-style is just another form of pro-wrestling, like garbage wrestling, lucha, european. Who was working in the first UWF ? Tiger Mask, who was doing moonsaults in the mids of "realistic" matches. Hell, they all did tons of traditionnal pro-wrestling moves in the first UWF, dropkicks etc... Second UWF had matches with Backlund. UWF-i had Vader, Dan Severn, the Iron Sheik, Bad News Brown, they worked in NJ and WAR.

Hell Dan, you're the one telling me that PRIDE was the best pro-wrestling promotion in the 2000. PRIDE. So, if PRIDE was "just another form of pro-wrestling", the entirely worked UWF-i certainly was as pro-wrestling as Jerry lawler working Bill Dundee, Abby working Terry Funk or Sabu working the Sandman. Just a stylistic difference, that's pretty much all there was. "Realism" was a gimmick. Some worked the gimmick feel speed (Tamura, Yamazaki), some didn't (Anjoh, Takada).

[ohtani's jacket]

Since Takada became arguably the biggest draw in the 90's in Japan, either UWF-i fans were satisfied with the believability of Takada as the big star of their "worked shoot" promotion, either they didn't care about realism that much to begin with and had no problem with Takada not being "realistic" enough. No, these are not valid reasons for criticising Takada at all. UWF-i was pro-wrestling, period. It's like criticizing some mexican guy because is style is not lucha libre enough and does too much american style pro-wrestling spots are psychology while working in Mexico. If it works, that's all that matters. And Takada's style worked in spades, and drew shitload of money to boot. So, whatever the claim of the UWF and UWF-i being "realistic", their fan embraced Takada and didn't see any problem wih his "lack of realism". You really think Fujiwara is realistic ? Goofy headbeat galore. Nah...

Takada being a star had very little to do with his ring work, and John already made it clear that UWF-i was more popular than PWFG and RINGS. Does that mean it was better than PWFG and RINGS? No, a thousand times no. The fact that you're arguing that it did good business is a bit rich. A lot of the WWE stuff you hate did good business too. And I would completely criticise a guy who worked too much of a US style in Mexico. I don't watch lucha to see US style pro-wrestling and I don't watch shoot style to see faux worked shoots. I really couldn't care whether it worked or how much money it drew. The fact that UWF-i drew more money than PWRG and RINGS really didn't have much to do with the styles they were working, but if you want to go down that route then all it really proves is that a less realistic style outdraws a more serious style.

 

Since you haven't watched Takada in however many years, how would you even define his style? Fujiwara's style was a mix of carney shit and incredibly high end matwork. It wasn't completely realistic, but I'm not arguing that he was one of the guys at the forefront of the push towards better and more realistic shoot style. But since you brought it up, there's a gap between Fujiwara and Takada the size of the gulf of Mexico.

 

Shoot-style is just another form of pro-wrestling, like garbage wrestling, lucha, european.

Shoot style was a move away from traditional pro-wrestling. I honestly think that people who come into shoot style asking "where's the story?" and looking for pro-wrestling and selling and drama are missing the point. Shoot style is an aesthetic. You can say it's just a gimmick, but these guys took this shit seriously.

 

Who was working in the first UWF ? Tiger Mask, who was doing moonsaults in the mids of "realistic" matches. Hell, they all did tons of traditionnal pro-wrestling moves in the first UWF, dropkicks etc... Second UWF had matches with Backlund. UWF-i had Vader, Dan Severn, the Iron Sheik, Bad News Brown, they worked in NJ and WAR.

What is your point? Tiger Mask was in the first UWF, so what? The first UWF grew out of a completely different idea which was to be NJPW-lite. They were only just finding their feet when they split up the first time. The second UWF used Backlund. Again, so what? I'm not saying it wasn't pro-wrestling. I'm saying that there is pro-style and there is shoot style and they are not the same thing.

 

Hell Dan, you're the one telling me that PRIDE was the best pro-wrestling promotion in the 2000. PRIDE.

Yes, PRIDE was the best Japanese pro-wrestling promotion in the 2000s. The reason I say this is I don't believe there's any rule that says what you promote on a pro-wrestling card has to be worked pro-wrestling matches, and in Japan I don't think you can trust the legitimacy of any professional kakutogi. This is Nobuhiko Takada we're talking about -- the guy who hobnobs with yakuza while chasing whatever idea makes a buck. Anyway, I really don't want to open this can of worms again.

 

So, if PRIDE was "just another form of pro-wrestling", the entirely worked UWF-i certainly was as pro-wrestling as Jerry lawler working Bill Dundee, Abby working Terry Funk or Sabu working the Sandman. Just a stylistic difference, that's pretty much all there was. "Realism" was a gimmick. Some worked the gimmick feel speed (Tamura, Yamazaki), some didn't (Anjoh, Takada).

No doubt people will think I'm being stupid about the things I said in this post, but to me this is just as stupid. Tamura's ability wasn't some kind of gimmick. The fact that he wanted to work a quasi-Pancrase style wasn't some kind of gimmick. Unless you wanna argue that Takada chose to be a lazy fuck as his gimmick.

[Ditch]

It's interesting to hear that Koji Kanemoto is considered one of the best worker in Japan by everyone because the guy, despite doing stiff kicks, is *safe as hell* apparently.

He gave Jimmy Rave a concussion, but that's about it from what I've heard.

[El-P]

Takada being a star had very little to do with his ring work, and John already made it clear that UWF-i was more popular than PWFG and RINGS. Does that mean it was better than PWFG and RINGS? No, a thousand times no. The fact that you're arguing that it did good business is a bit rich. A lot of the WWE stuff you hate did good business too.

This is not the point. WWE doesn't pretend to sell anything else but WWE wrestling. You seem to have a problem with UWF-i selling "shoot-style" wrestling, under the guise of realism which was supposed to be the roots of "shoot-style", while having a guy not realistic enough (or not good enough to be realistic) as their top star. You seem to imply it should be a problem to the viewers, yet, the native audience of the second UWF and UWF-i apparently had no "realism" issue with the product that were sold to them as "realistic", nor with Takada's style obviously. So, for whom it is an issue really, except people like you who have decided that Takada wasn't "realistic enough" ? It's like criticizing a movie for not delivering what *you* expect, even though it was not the point of the movie to begin with. I point to the fact that it did great business because it contradict your point that Takada's lack of realism was a problem in a promotion that was supposedly sold as "real". It wasn't an issue at all because UWF-i was just another style of pro-wrestling, period. Takada's "lack of realism" is just a bullshit line to me, especially coming from someone who pimp Fujiwara, who's about as pro-wrestling as anyone I've ever watched, as one the greatest shoot-style worker ever. Let's not have double standarts here. You can criticize Takada as much as you want to, but the "lack of realism" just doesn't cut it in any way shape or form.

 

And I would completely criticise a guy who worked too much of a US style in Mexico. I don't watch lucha to see US style pro-wrestling and I don't watch shoot style to see faux worked shoots.

This doesn't make any sense, sorry. What is a "faux" (en français dans le texte) work shoot ? It's a work to begin with ! How can it be "faux". This is entirely a matter of aesthetic at this point, but if we talk about aesthetic, it opens a huge can of worms. And really, are there some "faux" brawling matches too ? Some "faux" barb wire matches were the guys don't bleed enough ? Come on. I get the feeling of "purity of style" here, and we're getting closer and closer to Mike Oles's old "wrestling as figure skating" argument. I'm sorry, but Takada vs Vader sure didn't look like Tamura vs Volk Han, but both were awesome *pro-wrestling* matches, and that's about where I draw the line.

 

The fact that UWF-i drew more money than PWRG and RINGS really didn't have much to do with the styles they were working, but if you want to go down that route then all it really proves is that a less realistic style outdraws a more serious style.

In what way RINGS or PWFG were more *serious* ? Some would say that PWFG was dull. RINGS had shitloads of just terrible shitty matches with godawful martial artist who couldn't work a lick, matches looking like contrived work-exposing turds, and you had to wait for Han, Yamamoto and Tamura to work against each other to get that pearl in a middle of terrible comically bad matches. RINGS card were a chore to sit through most of the time, especially before Tamura joigned. And the idea that Fujiwara is more *serious* than Takada is funny in itself. Again, shitloads of goofy headbutts and maneurism.

 

Since you haven't watched Takada in however many years, how would you even define his style?

He was working shoot-style. Now you can argue as much as you want why you think he wasn't a very good worker, but the "realistic" argument just has no place anywhere.

 

Fujiwara's style was a mix of carney shit and incredibly high end matwork. It wasn't completely realistic, but I'm not arguing that he was one of the guys at the forefront of the push towards better and more realistic shoot style.

I love the "It wasn't comletely realistic". No, indeed. Really a drunk Sandman smashing a bamboo cane on someone's head is more realistic in a real fight setting than Fujiwara's funky submissions (don't get me wrong here, I love Fuji's funky submissions) and goofy headbutts (which are as goofy as anything else I've seen in pro-wrestling). Fujiwara worked what we call "shoot-style". He didn't look much more realistic than Takada or Maeda to me. Like Takada, like Han, like Gary Allbright. You would admit neither of these guys work the same way, but that they work in the realm of one style that is more "realistic", quotations marks matter here, than your average modern US or Japan style.

 

Shoot style was a move away from traditional pro-wrestling. I honestly think that people who come into shoot style asking "where's the story?" and looking for pro-wrestling and selling and drama are missing the point. Shoot style is an aesthetic. You can say it's just a gimmick, but these guys took this shit seriously.

Again with the aesthetic argument, and that's where you open a huge can of worms. Because the words "aesthetic" and "these guy took this shit seriously" brings pictures of ROH matches with people chanting "this is awesome" at some moves exhibition, which can also be considered an aesthetic without selling nor drama. So, are we saying here that since it's all about aesthetic and the workers taking this shit seriously, the spot monkeys of the 2000 have created a new style that is worth digging into ?

I can see how some people would be lost in shoot-style, I never got that much lucha myself, so... Still both are pro-wrestling, and I don't see how it's more a departure from traditionnal pro-wrestling than FMW was.

 

What is your point? Tiger Mask was in the first UWF, so what? The first UWF grew out of a completely different idea which was to be NJPW-lite. They were onlu just finding their feet when they split up the first time. The second UWF used Backlund. Again, so what? I'm not saying it wasn't pro-wrestling. I'm saying that there is pro-style and there is shoot style and they are not the same thing.

Yes. And *your* point is ? I'm saying "realism" is not a factor of how good you are or aren't if you work shoot-style, that is all. Because "realism" just isn't a factor in pro-wrestling.

 

Yes, PRIDE was the best Japanese pro-wrestling promotion in the 2000s. The reason I say this is I don't believe there's any rule that says what you promote on a pro-wrestling card has to be worked pro-wrestling matches, and in Japan I don't think you can trust the legitimacy of any professional kakutōgi. This is Nobuhiko Takada we're talking about -- the guy who hobnobs with yakuza while chasing whatever idea makes a buck. Anyway, I really don't want to open this can of worms again.

Neither do I, but really, now you're implying that pro-wrestling doesn't have to be necesseraly *worked*. Which, basically, is wrong. Pro-wrestling has always been and will always be a *work*. Takada promoted PRIDE by doing worked matches in a MMA show. He did look like an idiot doing it. Well, it worked because it launched PRIDE, but Takada looked like a goof.

 

No doubt people will think I'm being stupid about the things I said in this post, but to me this is just as stupid. Tamura's ability wasn't some kind of gimmick. The fact that he wanted to work a quasi-Pancrase style wasn't some kind of gimmick. Unless you wanna argue that Takada chose to be a lazy fuck.

You're not making any sense here. Tamura is part of my personnal pantheon of wrestlers. I never said his ability was a gimmick. Selling "shoot-style" as the real thing was a total gimmick. It gave birth to a new and beautiful style, which I loved, but that's all there is. There's nothing more specific to it. Most of the shoot-style workers also worked in other promotions. Fujiwara worked in FMW. Yamazaki and Takada worked in New Japan. Naoki Sano used to work NJ junior, then worked heavy in NOAH with a his "UWF shoot-style" gimmick. Tamura obviously wasn't interested, that's why he choosed to not take part in NJ's feud with UFW-i, which allowed him to keep his pure shoot-style aura intact and become RINGS new native star instead of a NJ mid-carder. I love his matches with Han and Khosaka to death. But really, I couldn't give a flying fuck if those matches really look "realistic" or not. This is not the point. The point is to have great *pro-wrestling* matches. I don't love those match because I find them "more realistic". Hell, most real fight bore me to death, so if you would really want to do a realistic worked shoot, it would be a chore for me to watch. Hell, who in the hell could find Volk Han "realistic" ? Let's be serious, Volk Han is flashy as hell, he sells shots to the gut like Steamboat and does crazy submission shit like Regal, all in the realm of his own style, but still.

I know you think Takada is no good, but the argument that he was no good because he wasn't "realistic" enough just doesn't make any sense to me. Because if we're going that route, then Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Volk Han must be some shitty shoot-style worker too in their own way.

[jdw]

Takada being a star had very little to do with his ring work,

I would disagree with this. It's a bit like saying Hogan being a star had very little to do with Hogan's ring work.

 

We may not like Hogan's ring work. It may not fit into our ideal of pro wrestling. But it was very effective for his fans, across a variety of promotions.

 

John

[ohtani's jacket]

This is not the point. WWE doesn't pretend to sell anything else but WWE wrestling. You seem to have a problem with UWF-i selling "shoot-style" wrestling, under the guise of realism which was supposed to be the roots of "shoot-style", while having a guy not realistic enough (or not good enough to be realistic) as their top star.

I don't have a problem with the fact that they did this. My argument is that UWF-i wasn't very good and that was the reason why.

 

You seem to imply it should be a problem to the viewer, yet, the native audience of the second UWF and UWF-i apparently had no "realism" issue with the product that were sold to them as "realistic", nor with Takada's style obviously.

It's the viewer's prerogative whether they like it or not, but if you're going to keep bringing the audience into it then you should at least acknowledge that the audience DID end up having a problem with the direction of the company.

 

So, for whom it is an issue really, except people like you who have decided that Takada wasn't "realistic enough" ?

It's not an issue, it's an argument for why Takada wasn't a good shoot style worker. It's not the argument I would use, but I think it's a valid opinion. It's certainly more valid than the defence that "the Japanese audience didn't think so" or "Takada made money so it can't have been a problem." The matter of what looks good to hardcore fans and what makes money are two seperate things. You can't honestly tell me you enjoyed those Takada matches just because of the gate.

 

It's like criticizing a movie for not delivering what *you* expect, even though it was not the point of the movie to begin with.

Everybody does this to some degree or another because watching a movie is a purely selfish thing. Watching wrestling matches is no different. Everybody wants the match to their appeal to their sensibilities. If there are people out there who can watch stuff they don't like but still appreciate it from the perspective of what it's trying to achieve then they've probably got a pretty good head on their shoulders. I don't know what they're doing watching stuff they don't like, but then I don't have much patience for stuff I don't like.

 

If you asked me to break down why UWF-i was successful at first, I'd think about it more objectively or at least try to. And if somehow I was magically in charge of the book and it was my responsibility to make the company money, I'd probably have drastically different ideas about things, but as a fan of shoot style I'm looking at it from a purely selfish viewpoint.

 

I point to the fact that it did great business because it contradict your point that Takada's lack of realism was a problem in a promotion that was supposedly sold as "real". It wasn't an issue at all because UWF-i was just another style of pro-wrestling, period.

It made money at first and then it started losing money... and when it was on the verge of bankruptcy before the New Japan bailout, Takada did what you'd crudely describe as the pro-wrestling equivalent of threatening to jump on the train tracks by talking up his retirement... then the company ended up going bankrupt anyway in part because they'd strayed too far from the original concept. I think you know very well that UWF-i was sold as real and that realism was a huge, huge part of the way the company was promoted. I'm also sure you're aware that UWF-i's credibility was completely shattered by their dealings with NJPW. And I'm also sure you're aware that they lost Tamura because he disagreed with the direction of the company.

 

Takada's "lack of realism" is just a bullshit line to me, especially coming from someone who pimp Fujiwara, who's about as pro-wrestling as anyone I've ever watched, as one the greatest shoot-style worker ever. Let's not have double standarts here. You can criticize Takada as much as you want to, but the "lack of realism" just doesn't cut it in any way shape or form.

People who've watched a lot of Fujiwara pimp him as one of the greatest shoot style workers ever. As far as I'm aware, you haven't gone back and watched a whole lot of Fujiwara yet. MJH has and he doesn't agree with the Fujiwara pimping. That's okay, but you've at least got to go back and watch some of it.

 

This doesn't make any sense, sorry. What is a "faux" (en français dans le texte) work shoot ? It's a work to begin with ! How can it be "faux". This is entirely a matter of aesthetic at this point, but if we talk about aesthetic, it opens a huge can of worms. And really, are there some "faux" brawling matches too ? Some "faux" barb wire matches were the guys don't bleed enough ? Come on. I get the feeling of "purity of style" here, and we're getting closer and closer to Mike Oles's old "wrestling as figure skating" argument. I'm sorry, but Takada vs Vader sure didn't look like Tamura vs Volk Han, but both were awesome *pro-wrestling* matches, and that's about were I draw the line.

I can't remember what Mike Oles' "wrestling as figure skating" argument was. What is it? You're getting awfully literal here, Jerome. If you cue up a Takada worked shoot alongside a Tamura worked shoot (as an example), one looks like a pale imitation of the other. There's just no way that Takada/Vader compares to Tamura/Volk Han as an attempt to work a "worked shoot." It's purely a booking decision that UWF-i said we're going to book this type of match where the goals were completely different from what Maeda was trying to achieve. One is transcendent and the other is fucking awful and that's the value judgement that I place on them. Ask me to be more objective about Vader/Takada and it's clear that the Japanese crowd ate it up. Why wouldn't they? UWF-i was managed by an Inoki mark who promoted Takada like Inoki. It was everything they ate for breakfast.

 

In what way RINGS or PWFG were more *serious* ? Some would say that PWFG was dull.

Who says that? It's not so difficult to compare RINGS, PWFG and UWF-i because there's a couple of workers who jumped promotions. Sano had some of the greatest shoot style matches ever in PWFG and floundered in UWF-i. Kiyoshi Tamura spent years floundering in UWF-i and blossomed in RINGS. I think it's pretty obvious that they took their wrestling more seriously in the other promotions.

 

RINGS had shitloads of just terrible shitty atches with godawful martial artist who couldn't work a lick, matches looked like contrived work exposing turds, and you had to wait for Han, Yamamoto and Tamura to work against each other to get that pearl in a middle of terrible comically bad matches. And the idea that Fujiwara is more *serious* than Takada is funny in itself. Again, shitloads of goofy headbutts and maneurism.

Of course RINGS had bad matches. All promotions have bad matches. UWF-i had a metric shitload of bad matches. Shoot style in general has a metric shitload of bad matches, because shoot style is a difficult style to do well. Again with Fujiwara. Fujiwara was a thousand times better at wrestling than Takada, just like Volk was a thousand times better than Takada. The fact that they had a sense of humour doesn't change that. Guys do goofy shit in shoots as well, if that's what you're trying to imply.

 

He was working shoot-style. Now you can argue as much as you want why you think he wasn't a very good worker, but the "realistic" argument just has no place anywhere.

He was working shoot style. Was he working it well? If not, why not? What were others doing better? The whole "realism" thing simply means that realism is important to a particular group of fans on the internet. It may not have been important in 1991, but it's important to those people now which is all that really matters to them. In actual fact, it was more relevant in 1991 than is being suggested, but really I don't understand how criticisms of UWF-i being unrealistic are any different to criticisms of WWE being over produced.

 

I love the "It wasn't comletely realistic". No, indeed. Really a drunk Sandman smashing a bamboo cane on someone's head is more realistic in a real fight setting than Fujiwara's funky submissions (don't get me wrong here, I love Fuji's funky submissions) and goofy headbutts (which are as goofy as anything else I've seen in pro-wrestling). Fujiwara, globally, worked what we call "shoot-style".

Honestly, what is this all about? We're talking about shoot wrestling not some back alley brawl or bar fight. Fujiwara was better at wrestling than any shoot style guy bar Volk. Some of the other gaijin may have been stronger in their particular discipline like the Russian sambo fighters, but Fujiwara could've still taught them a thing or too. Why do you keep mistaking Fujiwara's performance tricks for his actual ability? It would be like harping on about Volk Han doing magic tricks and Ric Flair spots. It's fun, but it doesn't encapsulate what Volk was about.

 

Again with the aesthetic argument, and that's where you open a huge can of worms. Because the words "aesthetic" and "these guy took this shit seriously" brings pictures of ROH matches with people chanting "this is awesome" at some moves exhibition, which can also be considered an aesthetic without selling nor drama. So, are we saying here that since it's all about aesthetic and the workers taking this shit seriously, the spot monkeys of the 2000 have created a new style that is worth digging into ?

I can see how some people would be lost in shoot-style, but I never got lucha myself, so. Still both are pro-wrestling, and I don't see how it's more a departure from traditionnal pro-wrestling than FMW was.

You've lost me here. Exploding barbwire or Christ knows what else is no less a departure from tradtional pro-wrestling than shoot style. C'mon, that's stretching your argument a bit far. I'm not going to touch that ROH example because according to you if it works it works and I shouldn't be throwing my expectations onto it. My point is that a lot of people like shoot style to a certain point and it usually involves how close the match is to an exciting pro-style bout. It's not a criticism of those people, it's just my observation. A lot of the shoot style I like people might find dry, but I honestly think shoot style is about technique first and foremost. Which isn't to say I don't find matches either exciting or boring, but shoot style is the one style where I don't look for a narrative and I'm not hung up on story.

 

Yes. And *your* point is ? I'm saying "realism" is not a factor of how good you are or aren't if you work shoot-style, that is all. Because "realism" just isn't a factor in pro-wrestling.

Then what is a factor in whether you're good at shoot style or not?

 

Neither do I, but really, now you're implying that pro-wrestling doesn't have to be necesseraly *worked*. Which, basically, is wrong. Pro-wrestling has always been and will always be a *work*. Takada promoted PRIDE by doing worked matches in a MMA show. He did look like an idiot doing it. Well, it worked because it launched PRIDE, but Takada looked like a goof.

I don't buy that the matches have to be works. If a bunch of pro-wrestling guys sit around thinking of what they're going to promote and they settle on a shoot gimmick, then it's just another form of pro-wrestling promotion. You could argue that PRIDE evolved into something greater than that, but it folded too soon to really cement a place in the Japanese pro sport arena. I mean, on one hand you want to say that FMW matches and shoot style matches are the same thing, but as soon as it's no longer a work everyone freaks. I don't buy MMA as a completely legitimate sport. I don't understand how a company that had its ass saved by a reality TV show can be an entirely legitimate sport, and I don't trust the Japanese promoters one little bit. Even if it's 90% legit, it's still far more manipulated and controlled and booked than other sports. The temptation to control the fights in MMA is simply too strong. Anyway, this is going to end up with all sorts of annoying semantic debates and Meltzer has gone to all sorts of crazy extremes lately that make it difficult to suggest any support for his arguments, but I just think they're at least pretty close cousins.

 

You're not making any sense here. Tamura is part of my personnal pantheon of wrestlers. I love his matches with Han and Khosaka to death. But really, I couldn't give a flying fuck if those matches look "realistic" or not. This is not the point. The point is to have great *pro-wrestling* matches. I don't love those match because I find them "realistic". Hell, who in the hell could find Volk Han "realistic" ? Let's be serious, Volk Han is flashy as hell, he sells shots to the gut like Steamboat and does crazy submission shit like Regal, all in the realm of his own style, but still.

I know you think Takada is no good, but the argument that he was no good because he wasn't "realistic" enough just doesn't make any sense to me. Because if we're going that route, then Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Volk Han must be some shitty shoot-style worker too in their own way.

No, because ultimately they could work the mat and Takada couldn't. And guys who can work holds are always going to seem like better wrestlers/workers than those who can't. And to tie this back into my original involvement in this thread -- matwork wasn't a huge deal when looking at popular 90s trends. You won't find a lot of great matwork in the more popular styles. Hell, that's probably why Takada had a rep that he could work the mat well at all. Whereas, nowdays for some hardcore fans matwork is king. I mean, why do you honestly think people are pimping Fujiwara over Takada? Do you think it was premeditated? Do you think they're pimping Fujiwara at the expense of Takada to make Fujiwara look better? If Takada was good, I think most of us would say so.

[El-P]

It's the viewer's prerogative whether they like it or not, but if you're going to keep bringing the audience into it then you should at least acknowledge that the audience DID end up having a problem with the direction of the company.

I remember UWI-i drawing shitloads of money then getting into big problems, but I don't remember the reasons why. I doubt Takada was the reason, he was a huge draw until the end of his career. He drew huge in New Japan and he drew huge to launch PRIDE, despite having been "exposed" as a pro-wrestler for years and doing really bad worked shoots camouflaged as real shoots in PRIDE.

 

It's not an issue, it's an argument for why Takada wasn't a good shoot style worker. It's not the argument I would use, but I think it's a valid opinion.

I don't think it is.

 

It's certainly more valid than the defence that "the Japanese audience didn't think so" or "Takada made money so it can't have been a problem." The matter of what looks good to hardcore fans and what makes money are two seperate things. You can't honestly tell me you enjoyed those Takada matches just because of the gate.

I brought up this because you imply that shoot-style was something different than pro-style, sold on the basis that it looked real. So, I guess the audience was different too and was expecting "realistic stuff" out of any shoot-style promotion, right ? So, if that's the case, why did they made Takada the biggest shoot-style worker ever ? I know very well that Yamazaki, Tamura, Khosaka and Han are better pure shoot-style workers than Takada, I've never had any doubt about it. But that never bothered me. Takada was more pro-style at heart, so what ?

 

Everybody does this to some degree or another because watching a movie is a purely selfish thing.

Well, it's a mistake. You can judge a movie on its own merit, but not on what you expect it to be. It makes no sense to me.

 

Watching wrestling matches is no different. Everybody wants the match to their appeal to their sensibilities. If there are people out there who can watch stuff they don't like but still appreciate it from the perspective of what it's trying to achieve then they've probably got a pretty good head on their shoulders.

I agree.

 

If you asked me to break down why UWF-i was successful at first, I'd think about it more objectively or at least try to. And if somehow I was magically in charge of the book and it was my responsibility to make the company money, I'd probably have drastically different ideas about things, but as a fan of shoot style I'm looking at it from a purely selfish viewpoint.

I guess.

 

It made money at first and then it started losing money... and when it was on the verge of bankruptcy before the New Japan bailout, Takada did what you'd crudely describe as the pro-wrestling equivalent of threatening to jump on the train tracks by talking up his retirement... then the company ended up going bankrupt anyway in part because they'd strayed too far from the original concept.

I don't remember how things got bad to be honest. But Takada had been a big draw for years at this point. You can't have it both way, you can't say "what the japanese audience thought has nothing to do with what wer're discussing" and at the same time point out that "they ended up bankrupt". Either it is relevant, either it's not.

 

I think you know very well that UWF-i was sold as real and that realism was a huge, huge part of the way the company was promoted.

You think people really bought that ? And anyway, even though it was sold on realism, didn't Takada drew huge against pro-wrestler Vader ? Did the people really thought that was a legit fight ? That's whY i said it was a gimmick. And although I agree they strayed a little too far, if there's a guy to blame, wouldn't that be Anjoh making stupid challenges to the Gracie and getting humiliated. Wasn't Anjo a booker along with Nakano ?

 

I'm also sure you're aware that UWF-i's credibility was completely shattered by their dealings with NJPW. And I'm also sure you're aware that they lost Tamura because he disagreed with the direction of the company.

I know. Tamura did the best thing for his career. He had a niche audience and he protected his style by not mixing with NJ and going to RINGS. But then we're talking about business here, and I thought that wasn't relevant ? To me the "realistic" aspect of UWF was always a gimmick like any other to make money with a niche audience. UWF-i blew it at some point, I don't remember how that happens, it's old history at this point. But really, the only guy that kept his aura was Takada. Despite working the shittiest match ever with Mutoh at the dome, he still drew huge against Hashimoto for the next Dome Show. Again, we're talking about business here. Tamura made a good business decision for himself, Takada did a good business decision for himself. The talk of the days back then was all about Takada showing up in AJ to boost attendance. Although I agree UWF-i lost their way, I'm not ready to buy it was because Nobuhiko Takada wasn't working "realistic enough".

 

People who've watched a lot of Fujiwara pimp him as one of the greatest shoot style workers ever. As far as I'm aware, you haven't gone back and watched a whole lot of Fujiwara yet. MJH has and he doesn't agree with the Fujiwara pimping. That's okay, but you've at least got to go back and watch some of it.

That's not even the point. The point is, Fujiwara also did lot of goofy pro-wrestling stuff, and his matwork, as great and fun as it was, wasn't "realistic". I can buy that Fujiwara was a great shoot-style worker (and I'm talking by my standart), and there's no doubt he was better on the mat than most. But it's not an issue of realism at all. That's why I say if your issue with Takada is "realism", then you should have the same issue with Fuji or Volk Han (who I adore).

 

I can't remember what Mike Oles' "wrestling as figure skating" argument was. What is it?

You don't want to know, I assure you.

 

You're getting awfully literal here, Jerome. If you cue up a Takada worked shoot alongside a Tamura worked shoot (as an example), one looks like a pale imitation of the other. There's just no way that Takada/Vader compares to Tamura/Volk Han as an attempt to work a "worked shoot."

Thats' where we disagree. To me I don't see how any of these matches should be judge as far as realism go. These are two wrestling match worked in the realm of one style we call "shoot-style" because it's supposed to look more "real" than other form of wrestling. One is more about technical wiz, the other is about drama and flash. That's all there is to me

 

It's purely a booking decision that UWF-i said we're going to book this type of match where the goals were completely different from what Maeda was trying to achieve. One is transcendent and the other is fucking awful and that's the value judgement that I place on them. Ask me to be more objective about Vader/Takada and it's clear that the Japanese crowd ate it up. Why wouldn't they? UWF-i was managed by an Inoki mark who promoted Takada like Inoki. It was everything they ate for breakfast.

What can I say. I loved both, although my preference goes to Tamura vs Han. Maybe on rewatch I would hate Takada vs Vader. I doubt I would quite frankly. My favourite pro-wrestling match ever, the most beautiful I've seen, is the infamous Tamura vs Khosaka 30 minute draw. That's it, that's my favourite 30 minutes of men's wrestling I ever seen in my 21 years watching wrestling. Does that keep me from thinking Takada vs Vader was great ? No. Go figure.

 

Who says that? It's not so difficult to compare RINGS, PWFG and UWF-i because there's a couple of workers who jumped promotions. Sano had some of the greatest shoot style matches ever in PWFG and floundered in UWF-i.

Blame Nakano. Blame Nakano for not pushing Yamazaki either.

 

Kiyoshi Tamura spent years floundering in UWF-i and blossomed in RINGS.

Tamura had some great matches in UWF-i too. And it was only logical he would blossom in RINGS because he peaked there and was put in situations to have great matches with great opponents. in UWF-i, not so much. UWF-i should have pushed Tamura as the heir to Takada's throne of course. I never said UWF-i's booking was good.

 

The fact that they had a sense of humour doesn't change that. Guys do goofy shit in shoots as well, if that's what you're trying to imply.

Oh, so Fujiwara and Volk Han were realistic but had a sense of humour. Ok.

Tamura and Kohsaka never struck me by being overty funny though.

 

He was working shoot style. Was he working it well? If not, why not? What were others doing better?

That I won't get into since like I said I haven't watched the guy in 10 years and that wasn't my point. I know how Takada is viewed these days.

 

The whole "realism" thing simply means that realism is important to a particular group of fans on the internet. It may not have been important in 1991, but it's important to those people now which is all that really matters to them.

Well, I guess. Doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

UWF-i being unrealistic are any different to criticisms of WWE being over produced.

You're losing me here by bringing up WWE again. Again, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

Honestly, what is this all about? We're talking about shoot wrestling not some back alley brawl or bar fight. Fujiwara was better at wrestling than any shoot style guy bar Volk. Some of the other gaijin may have been stronger in their particular discipline like the Russian sambo fighters, but Fujiwara could've still taught them a thing or too. Why do you keep mistaking Fujiwara's performance tricks for his actual ability?

Hum, Dan, I never said anything about his ability, but you seem to have this obsession with realism which makes you think everytime I say Fujiwara was not that realistic is a knock on him. Hear me out : I don't care about *realism* in pro-wrestling. And since shoot-style to me is just another form of pro-wrestling, I don't care about *realism* in shoot-style either. I'm well aware of Fujiwara's abilities.

 

You've lost me here. Exploding barbwire or Christ knows what else is no less a departure from tradtional pro-wrestling than shoot style. C'mon, that's stretching your argument a bit far.

Well, you do it too by bringing up WWE's production into the argument.

 

I'm not going to touch that ROH example because according to you if it works it works and I shouldn't be throwing my expectations onto it. My point is that a lot of people like shoot style to a certain point and it usually involves how close the match is to an exciting pro-style bout. It's not a criticism of those people, it's just my observation. A lot of the shoot style I like people might find dry, but I honestly think shoot style is about technique first and foremost. Which isn't to say I don't find matches either exciting or boring, but shoot style is the one style where I don't look for a narrative and I'm not hung up on story.

Ok, and that's your upmost right. I've been a shoot-style fan since 1998, I loved the Tamura vs Han and Tamura vs Khosaka matches I've seen, some of my best time watching wrestling, but not once it has crossed my mind that I was watching for something specific in these. To me it was just the most beautiful style of pro-wrestling I saw, and that was it. I don't know what other people expect from it.

 

Then what is a factor in whether you're good at shoot style or not?

Come on Dan... Technical ability, kicking ability of that's your stuff (Tamura wasn't a kicker, but he still ruled), matwork, smootness, creating excitement with submissions, building dramatic escapes, selling KO, selling submissions etc...

 

I don't buy that the matches have to be works. If a bunch of pro-wrestling guys sit around thinking of what they're going to promote and they settle on a shoot gimmick, then it's just another form of pro-wrestling promotion. You could argue that PRIDE evolved into something greater than that, but it folded too soon to really cement a place in the Japanese pro sport arena. I mean, on one hand you want to say that FMW matches and shoot style matches are the same thing, but as soon as it's no longer a work everyone freaks. I don't buy MMA as a completely legitimate sport. I don't understand how a company that had its ass saved by a reality TV show can be an entirely legitimate sport, and I don't trust the Japanese promoters one little bit. Even if it's 90% legit, it's still far more manipulated and controlled and booked than other sports. The temptation to control the fights in MMA is simply too strong. Anyway, this is going to end up with all sorts of annoying semantic debates and Meltzer has gone to all sorts of crazy extremes lately that make it difficult to suggest any support for his arguments, but I just think they're at least pretty close cousins.

The fact that MMA may be not totally legitimate is like boxing. But it's called fixing, not working, and it's cheating the audience. Not exactly the same thing unless you wnat to argue that it was exactly what pro-wrestling used to be at first.

 

No, because ultimately they could work the mat and Takada couldn't. And guys who can work holds are always going to seem like better wrestlers/workers than those who can't.

Well, if your argument is that Takada sucked on the mat, I can hear that, and since I haven't watched his matches for so long, I won't argue at this point, plus I have no desire to. That said, you can suck on the mat and be a good kicker, good at building to exciting knock downs or knock out etc etc... Tamura was pretty mich strictly a mat technician as far as offense goes, I don't remember him kicking that much, and kicking is a big part of shoot-style.

 

And to tie this back into my original involvement in this thread -- matwork wasn't a huge deal when looking at popular 90s trends. You won't find a lot of great matwork in the more popular styles. Hell, that's probably why Takada had a rep that he could work the mat well at all. Whereas, nowdays for some hardcore fans matwork is king.

I guess that's why Jerry Lawler is pimped as one of the best ever.

Ok, that one was snarky.

 

I mean, why do you honestly think people are pimping Fujiwara over Takada? Do you think it was premeditated? Do you think they're pimping Fujiwara at the expense of Takada to make Fujiwara look better? If Takada was good, I think most of us would say so.

I didn't intend to compare Takada and Fujiwara there. My issue was with the "realism" argument. And quite frankly, I'm amused that it may be an argument to pimp Fujiwara over Takada when both as pretty unrealistic to begin with.

Hey, I'm too old for these long posts.

[MJH]

Just to clarify a few things:

 

(First to Loss on the "movements") I'll admit to being dismissive and skeptical of mass changing of opinions. When after years of being well-received but hardly revered, suddenly Fujiwara is proclaimed as an all-time great (when, unlike Lawler, the footage was always there), I think it's only natural to be hesitant towards it. And when it comes to Fujiwara and Lawler in particular, they fit perfectly in line with certain trends. Both are very stripped down, very "carny", very simple, etc... there's nothing wrong in that, of course, and I think both did deserve re-appraisals and deserve more popularity and plaudits than they'd got previously.

 

I just don't buy either as a GOAT candidate at all. "Great" on occasion (I love the Fujiwara/Sayama matches; ditto the higher-pimped Lawler/Dundee stuff etc...), generally good-at-worst and often very good. Ultimately, I think Lawler was an over-achiever and too limited to be a true all-time great. Perhaps if he'd had a run with the NWA belt or something, and there was a chance to see him in Japan/etc... he'd've added certain things (the punches get tiresome for me, sorry). I like him plenty, but I just don't see a Top 5 US wrestler there. On Fujiwara there are times when I really like him, like the Sayama matches and there's an upset over Maeda circa 1990 I really liked even years ago, but other times he bores me (vs. Yamazaki/vs. Takada). Like Lawler there's a lot of charm and charisma, etc... but I don't see a GOAT guy.

[Ditch]

Yes, the Fujiwara footage was 'there', but it wasn't all that heavily seen before the '80s and PWFG sets. I'm with you in that I don't think he or Lawler have enough all-time great performances to merit GOAT status, but the vast majority of Fujiwara's career was overlooked until the last couple years.

[MJH]

On the matwork front - obviously it's only important if you place a credence on it in your work. I think Misawa/Kawada/Kobashi are the best ever... but a lot of their basic wrestling technique and matwork were very sub par. They were often lazy on whips, Misawa in particular would hop into his lock-ups, etc... Kawada, I guess, was OK on the mat; but what did any of that really matter?

 

I always liked Takada's matwork, actually. I didn't find it "lazy". Was he as technically-gifted on the ground as Tamura? Not at all. But, like I said a few posts earlier, I think 12/84 with Yamazaki had strong, intelligent matwork. I always thought they were great with their body language and kept the crowd really well doing it. But I'm with Jerome on the "Takada was a pro wrestler first" thing. To his benefit.