PG-13 vs. The World

[Dylan Waco]

Of the teams you mentioned I really think only The Elims and RVD/Sabu were teams with the same amount of big spots/varied double teams/et as the Steiners. I love the FBI in all it's incarnations and think Smothers/Guido is one of the great forgotten teams of all time, but I don't know that double team offense is something that was a huge, huge strength of theres. The BWO had exactly one nifty spot I can think of - the teased Meanie dive, leading to Meanie holding the ropes for the Nova plunge. That's it. Dudz had a great double team finish and one or two fun offense tag spots, but nothing on the level of the Steiners

[Victator]

FBI had the super kick Russian Legsweep combo, The Paisano elbow sequence and the Rocket Launcher.

 

Watching 88 NWA and the Powers of Pain have a ton of cool looking spots. The Hart attack, a Suplex/flying clothesline combo, powerslam into flying headbutt, Flying headbutt decaptator. One of the bigger surprises from watching 88.

[khawk20]

Hated it even more when I was the referee in question who was kicking the heel's arms. Why the fuck would the referee kick the arms? Any other time a wrestler grabs the ropes, you call for a rope break.

The premise is actually that the ref doesn't allow a wrestler to grab the ropes to get the break, he has to be under the ropes. Heel grabs rope, ref kicks it away, because it's an illegal move.

 

Seriously.

[S.L.L.]

In sports the former becomes the latter when they are exceptional, usually.

Professional wrestling isn't a sport. Exceptional performance in wrestling guarantees nothing in terms of making it big. Hell, you can actually be punished for it under the right circumstances. Assuming that wrestling promotions are run as meritocracies is a very big mistake.

 

Also, Jamie Dundee is kind of a fucked up dude, but aside from that....

[khawk20]

The Valiant Brothers

 

This is the Jimmy and Johnny team from the mid-70s, again mainly for the rep. There's a match of theirs against Wilbur Snyder and Billy Robinson I've been after for a while but yet to find it.

I've got this...Have to dig up the vhs to check out how long and what kind of shape it's in, though. I suspect it's from the Bob Luce films.

[goodhelmet]

SMKelly – Ignoring the idea that you have to be Phil Schneider in order to search for matches that you haven’t seen (which is one of the weirdest things I have seen written on a message board), the entire point of the thread is that the more PG-13 matches that are discovered, the stronger the argument becomes that they were one of the best tag teams. This isn’t some contrarian viewpoint. Footage of PG13 (and most tag teams in this thread) is more widely available today than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. Entire seasons of SMW and USWA as well as circulation of ECW/SMW fancams are available that allow us to re-evaluate their worth. You can disagree but disagree on the merits of the matches you have actually seen.

The big league vs. minor league argument is silly because you are comparing performance vs. real competition as mentioned above. Doesn’t hold weight at all. We aren’t comparing wrestling accomplishments such as worked title reigns. Under that logic, HHH, the 32 time world champion is Top 5 all time and someone already used the Hogan-AmDrag example. This is a discussion about actual match performance, not worked accomplishments.

[Jingus]

Bad attitudes/crazy behavior? check

Oh, you have no idea. I've got several firsthand stories about Jamie and/or Wolfie being nuts, but this one's my favorite. I was hanging out at a local TV taping one time, which was held at a nightclub called the Inferno Bar (which, ironically, burned down a couple years later). The boys used an upstairs karaoke room as the locker room, and they shot promos on a little stage they had in there. There was a local money mark who worked (very badly) as a manager, and he was one of those sort of almost-rich guys who always carried around a massive wad of cash. He was in the middle of a promo, fanning out this stack of hundred-dollar bills, when suddenly we see a JC Ice-shaped blur leap across the stage and grab for the money. He missed, everyone laughed it off, and Jamie pretended that it was just a joke. But talking with my friends later, we all pretty much agreed that if Jamie had managed to snatch the money that he would've been out the back door and gone.

 

Wolfie as Slash was one of the best things about TNA. Which is not saying much but he was really good there.

Yeah, the whole New Church was a fun gimmick. They were having really good matches which involved Brian Lee, which isn't something you'd expect in the 21st century. (Brian was a friend of mine at one point, but I won't pretend that he wasn't often a poor performer.) (Although, that's not something I would've said to his face. He's an excitable fella.) Several fun brawls between those guys and America's Most Wanted were frequently the highlights of the early TNA shows. But the promotion was booked so chaotically at the time that the New Church would frequently just vanish for long periods of time, robbing them of any momentum they might have had.

 

Hated it even more when I was the referee in question who was kicking the heel's arms. Why the fuck would the referee kick the arms? Any other time a wrestler grabs the ropes, you call for a rope break.

The premise is actually that the ref doesn't allow a wrestler to grab the ropes to get the break, he has to be under the ropes. Heel grabs rope, ref kicks it away, because it's an illegal move.

 

Seriously.

 

If that ever was a rule, I think it went out of style at about the same time as disqualifying someone for throwing a closed-fist punch. I've never seen a show where they actually explained that as being one of the official rules. Nowadays, the "touching any rope in any way = rope break" is a pretty consistent guideline, so that archaic spot doesn't make any sense.

[Strummer]

For anyone who went to high school in the early/mid 90s the gimmick was perfectly executed. Just thinking of the look, the wardrobe and the vernacular of the team reminds me of *so* many kids I went to high school with from 1993-1997. It's uncanny. In a way there was a subversive nature to the gimmick that was borderline brilliant satire

[Strummer]

[smkelly]

Hated it even more when I was the referee in question who was kicking the heel's arms. Why the fuck would the referee kick the arms? Any other time a wrestler grabs the ropes, you call for a rope break.

The premise is actually that the ref doesn't allow a wrestler to grab the ropes to get the break, he has to be under the ropes. Heel grabs rope, ref kicks it away, because it's an illegal move.

 

Seriously.

 

The ref reprimands a worker for using the ropes for "extra leverage" for pinning moves and/or submissions as well.

 

In sports the former becomes the latter when they are exceptional, usually.

Professional wrestling isn't a sport.

Never said it was, man.

[Dylan Waco]

For anyone who went to high school in the early/mid 90s the gimmick was perfectly executed. Just thinking of the look, the wardrobe and the vernacular of the team reminds me of *so* many kids I went to high school with from 1993-1997. It's uncanny. In a way there was a subversive nature to the gimmick that was borderline brilliant satire

This is SOOOO true. Growing up in the South the redneck/wannabe fusion culture of the mid-90's was really prevalent and those two really nailed it. Especially Dundee.

[smkelly]

SMKelly – Ignoring the idea that you have to be Phil Schneider in order to search for matches that you haven’t seen (which is one of the weirdest things I have seen written on a message board),

At any rate, here is a perfect example of where what I was thinking did not transition very well into the written word. I can't even remember what it is I was trying to prove, so yeah, under that context, it was rather REish of me. My bad, so sad

 

the entire point of the thread is that the more PG-13 matches that are discovered, the stronger the argument becomes that they were one of the best tag teams. This isn’t some contrarian viewpoint.

In some circles it is, though. PG-13 is not as widely known as you may think they are. I do understand where you are coming from though.

 

The big league vs. minor league argument is silly because you are comparing performance vs. real competition as mentioned above. Doesn’t hold weight at all. We aren’t comparing wrestling accomplishments such as worked title reigns. Under that logic, HHH, the 32 time world champion is Top 5 all time and someone already used the Hogan-AmDrag example. This is a discussion about actual match performance, not worked accomplishments.

1. Yeah, I can see where comparing a real sport versus a non-real sport is ridiculous, but I was trying to bridge the gap between the difference in leagues of professional wrestling and lacked an overall better analogy to provide. I guess I just look at a team like Steiner Brothers more favorably than PG-13 because of their status. Because they were in the spotlight in Japan, in the WWF, and in NWA/WCW. Kind of like watching a minor league batting practice versus watching a major league batting practice, one is clearly better for a reason. Or wondering why Michael Jordan made it at the #3 pick while Sam Bowie didn't as the #2 pick. Or why Ralph Sampson could never live up to the hype he got as the #1 draft pick the year earlier. Basically, if PG-13 > Steiner Brothers and PG-13 is your pick, why aren't PG-13 on a different playing field...kind of like how the Steiner's are to them?

 

2. I might be wrong, but aren't championship accomplishments outside of American wrestling considered prestigious? Maybe not so much anymore but certainly in the nineties. For the longest time having a lot of title reigns was the selling point to Flair's career. It's what made him Flair. Would Flair be the solid Hall of Famer that he is without his record amount of World Heavyweight title reigns? To answer yes isn't as easy as simply saying yes. It is a definite and valid point to be considered.

 

Nevertheless, saying that being a top champion in one of the bigger leagues means nothing, even in this context, which is the discussion of tag teams, is like not talking about accomplishments in the GOAT discussion. A wrestler who lacks accomplishments won't make the Hall of Fame. The Steiner Brothers are a Hall of Fame tag team. Is PG-13?

 

Would Jerry Lawler have made the inaugural WON Hall of Fame without having been a territorial champion and/or AWA World Champion? Would you tell Jerry that his combined 68 something title reigns mean absolutely nothing because they are worked accomplishments?

 

WON Hall of Fame

I briefly took a glimpse at that list, but how many wrestlers are on there that lack a title reign of any kind? How many times under notes does it say, "Worked many fantastic matches." It doesn't for Flair, Kobashi, Lawler, Misawa, or Kawada. Obviously their working ability helped them get in the Hall of Fame, the point is though, that their working ability isn't the only reason why they made the Hall of Fame. Bill Dundee is not a WON Hall of Famer but has plenty of stellar matches on his resume, mostly working opposite of Lawler.

 

3. The discussion doesn't rely solely on that particular criteria though. Windham & Rhodes were set aside because of their relative short existence as a team. Their matches together were good. In fact, they were one of the better teams WCW had during their tag team years.

 

4. I suggested making this a sub-forum topic already. I think it would better serve a discussion of this magnitude. Or do you or Loss disagree?

 

5. Is it telling of PG-13's career that they never made it "big"? I would think that a team so incredibly awesome would have been headlining PPV's and being showcased on at least Nitro. It seems as only excuses have been made to cover that question up. Plenty of workers before, during, and since their time have been "troubled," had a "bad attitude," and were "small," but still made something for themselves. Out of all of the teams mentioned against PG-13, which one is a considerably less known team? Did they have any trouble making a name for themselves? The British Bulldogs made it big but were hated, feared, while being bullies and tyrants of the locker room. The Steiner's were in a similar vein, especially Scotty. The Road Warriors were assholes and stiffed the fuck out of nearly everyone they faced, which would piss a lot of workers off.

 

I'm sorry if those questions or points I am making seem confrontational, it is not my intention - I just need more of a validation than just a match versus match aspect to persuade me into believing that PG-13 is better than any of the teams I originally listed. Because if it was on a match versus match aspect, I doubt any American team would crack the top five. And I doubt that is a point you're willing to admit to.

 

Kawada & Taue has either 6/9/95 or 12/6/96 as their definite trump

Misawa & Kobashi have 6/9/95 as their definite trump

Doc & Ace have 6/7/96 as their definite trump

Hansen & Gordy have 12/16/88 as their definite trump

Tenryu & Tsuruta have 1/28/86 as their definite trump

Toyota & Yamada has either 11/26/92 or 4/11/93 as their definite trump

Inoki & Fujinami have 12/7/84 as their definite trump

Benoit & Ohtani have 10/16/94 as their definite trump

Hase & Saski have 11/1/90 as their definite trump

Los Gringos Locos have 11/6/94 as their definite trump

 

What American team, PG-13 included of course, can compete with any of those matches on the match versus match basis? 12/6/96 has been mentioned in this thread as the greatest tag match of all-time, so by that train of thought then, Kawada/Taue & Misawa/Akiyama are the best tag teams of all-time. Misawa & Kobashi would be the natural #3 team then with their 6/9/95 performance, which would then mean Kawada & Taue are the #1 team of all-time because of their involvement in the 12/6/96 match. Judging purely on a match to match basis is a slippery slope. Because for the life of me, I can't rate a one hit wonder higher then a team that has twice the longevity and overall resume. This is where wrestling traverses into a more sports like discussion for me.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm just a little baffled that you're here, trying to have a conversation with everyone, and using moveset as not just a argument, but as a primary reason to like or dislike a body of work. In 2011. Here. That's all. When I was 9, I thought that Hogan was TERRIBLE because he only punched and bodyslammed people. And then when on the UNREAL History of Professional Wrestling on A&E when Bruno or someone made that exact same comment, I felt so vindicated. Now, I like to think I look at things a little more openly. Moreover, I actually read the back and forths here. They're great. It's a great sight, and that's the last argument I'd make around here, because I'd look like a complete and utter ass in making it.

I do not like the implication here that I do not read the back and forths here, because I do.

 

I fully appreciate and understand the benefits of economy and pared-down movesets, but at the same time -- and sure, this might be against the prevalent orthodoxy here -- I would still like to see a little bit of variety in someone's offence. Demolition literally only did three or four spots. I mean that was it. You mention Hogan; Hogan had a lot more spots than that and I *still* think his selling ability is underrated in general.

 

You're probably right to single me out, I'm probably the one guy here who hasn't watched 100s of Jerry Lawler matches, and I've already admitted that I scarcely know who PG-13 are. And as we've been over already quite a few times, I don't even take matches as the main unit for analysis when judging a wrestler or a tag team. I still think that someone doesn't even need good matches if they are entertaining. Hell, if I did my Top 50 wrestlers list tomorrow, Vince would probably be one of them.

 

Point is, you don't have to subscribe to a critical orthodoxy in order to take part in a conversation, often it's more interesting if people aren't all on the same page. As the ongoing debate in this thread has demonstrated, not everyone has the same criteria, such is the nature of making a value judgement. For me, you've GOT to do more than forearms and double axe-handles, and if that IS all you are going to do, then I'm expecting great brawls early Duggan style. Demolition never had great brawls because their violence was stylised and cartoony. Sure, you might say that was 80s WWF style, but I can name about 20 guys or more who still managed to have good offence under those conditions. My dislike of the Demos extends far beyond moveset, but the bottomline is that they had about 3 or 4 moves and they never even put them to good use.

[ohtani's jacket]

I have no idea who PG-13 are. Can someone recommend a match?

[goodhelmet]

Dylan listed a few earlier in the thread as did Loss.

[smkelly]

#1 on Google

 

PG-13 vs. Rock & Roll Express:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssmlpoNswOQ

[El-P]

The issue with the Steiners is that they just weren't anything special as a team. Yeah, they threw big bombs, which was cool. And that's it. The infamous Steiner vs Sasaki & Hase match at the Tokyo Dome is one of the most overrated match ever. For someone watching the entire NJ TV form that year, this mtach just isn't anything special at all. A bunch of big spots for no reasons basically, a fun sprints with bombs left and left. The infamous Steiners vs Luger & Sting from GAB, same stuff. Actually, Hase & Sasaki vs Rick Steiner & Scott Norton a few months later was much better because of the new dynamic of the match with a monster like Norton, which allowed them to actually tell a more dramatic story instead of just throwing spots left and right. Steiner vs Nasty Boys = Steiner throwing Nasty Boys around, again, nothing special. I can't think of a great Steiner match. I can think of plenty fun Steiner matches which were all the same thing, a collection of spots.

The Steiner were the new Road Warriors, but I don't think they ever had the matches the RW had in Crockett or AJ. Way overrated as a team. And like Dylan said, they did very few actual teamwork.

I can probably accept the fact PG-13 were a better team than the Steiners without much problem.

[El-P]

Point is, you don't have to subscribe to a critical orthodoxy in order to take part in a conversation, often it's more interesting if people aren't all on the same page. As the ongoing debate in this thread has demonstrated, not everyone has the same criteria, such is the nature of making a value judgement. For me, you've GOT to do more than forearms and double axe-handles, and if that IS all you are going to do, then I'm expecting great brawls early Duggan style. Demolition never had great brawls because their violence was stylised and cartoony. Sure, you might say that was 80s WWF style, but I can name about 20 guys or more who still managed to have good offence under those conditions. My dislike of the Demos extends far beyond moveset, but the bottomline is that they had about 3 or 4 moves and they never even put them to good use.

Agreed, and well put. Watching a Demos match, I don't by them as being those terrific brawlers who destroy opponents. They don't project anything violent in their matches, because the moves they use just suck and are boring. Once in a while you get some good stuff because it's freaking Bill Eadie under the hood, but still, most of the time, Demos on offense put me to sleep if they don't have a really quality team against them, which they had a lot thanks to the deep talent pool in tag teams in the WWF at that time.

[Matt D]

I don't want you to subscribe to critical orthodoxy, but it's nice to be on the same page. You linked to an argument that was almost completely moveset based, and that's just been seconded.

 

The things Demolition did well, in bullet point format:

 

Match structure: Both in variety and logical storytelling. Everything makes sense to a level that's almost absurd. If they do something in the ring (especially Ax, but by 88 Smash is pretty much there too) there is a reason for it. Nothing is done for the sake of doing it. Moreover, they change up their matches so frequently, even against the same opponents. There's no simple formula. The transitions are different.

 

Playing their role: They make their opponents work for everything, but they also give exactly when they should give and exactly how much. This is why the heel-in-peril reasoning doesn't apply. Opponents even have to work their asses off to keep the armwork early on that's almost a given in 90% of all tag matches of the era(no matter where you are). And when it comes time to beg off or to do that arm work themselves (the 88 Harts match and Twin Towers series respectively), they do it. They have different matches with different opponents and look at how they turn up the steam in that Rockers match. I think that some of it was really protecting their characters, but they were giving too. Making their opponents better only made them look better as well either in a win or a loss.

 

Timing: One thing they always made their opponents work for was the hot tag. It almost never came immediately after the first babyface comeback or exactly where you'd think it would come in anyone else's tag match. It lingered a few spots later and rose in intensity and heat because of that. They knew when to take over and end the shine sequences. They knew when to allow for babyface hope spots. They knew when to slow things down and when to go to the crowd. They knew when to tag and when not to.

 

Doing so much with so little: They had relatively short matches. They had a very small moveset, though that just makes it all the more striking when Smash kicks out the Hotshot or what have you. But they make everything that they do matter and every second that they have worth something. If they're putting a neckvice on someone, it's not just a rest hold. There's a narrative reason for it within the match, and they're likely doing something else, as well, to engage the crowd alongside it.

 

Obviously, some of this is subjective. People have different tastes, but I can at least recognize when something's done well, even if it doesn't hit my particular tastes (hell, I did that earlier in the posts where I admitted that Smothers' SMW promos were effective. They just weren't for me). The Demolition project came up organically. I watched a bunch of matches in chronological order amidst other things of the time and they really stood out to me and surprised me because I had a "Demolition = plodding and boring" preconception. Then I watched a whole bunch in a row and I was blown away. We started to see the patterns and we started to break down the matches to figure out exactly what made them tick. And there are absolutely patterns.

[JerryvonKramer]

Before I say anything, I'll say this: I will go and revisit some Demos matches keeping what you've said here in mind. Interesting you describe them mainly working heel.

 

But you see, for me, the reasons you've given there are tantamount to saying: film X is good because it adhreres to the structures of the genre, moves coherently from A to B, and knows exactly when to pull the emotional triggers on its audience and it does it all in just 70 minutes!

 

Does that sound like a good film to you? Or does it sound like a by-the-numbers generic B-move?

 

I guess the problem we have in wrestling is that so many people now have forgotten the basics -- the match is so broken as a narrative genre -- that fundamental competence is now lauded as being a great thing. It's not great is it though? It's just competent. That's got to be just what you EXPECT as a basic minimum, not what you're looking for.

 

I don't want my experience of watching a match to be like a box-ticking exercise, I'm looking both to be entertained and engaged with it emotionally. I can't think of any Demolition match aside from the double turn vs. the Powers of Pain and the Wrestlemania VI match with Haku and Andre (mainly for the post-match with Heenan) that have done that -- and both times it was because of angle elements rather than those within the match.

 

Like I said though, I will watch Demos vs. The Rockers with an open mind, looking for the best. And if I like it I'll be sure to let you know.

[El-P]

I'm not gonna dive into a long Demo argument because of lack of time, will and interest about the topic to be honest, although Matt's post is very interesting.

 

Just wanted to point out this :

 

I guess the problem we have in wrestling is that so many people now have forgotten the basics -- the match is so broken as a narrative genre -- that fundamental competence is now lauded as being a great thing. It's not great is it though? It's just competent. That's got to be just what you EXPECT as a basic minimum, not what you're looking for.

I couldn't agree more. The "he plays his role well" argument as a mark of greatness is something that has bothered me for years, most notably since the absurd Mark Henry pimping years ago. Being competent at what you're supposed to do doesn't mean you're a great wrestler. You're good at what you're supposed to do, well, that's the damn minimum you should deliver. If you don't "play your role well", you shouldn't even be employed. Greatness is just another matter entirely.

 

I said it, I thought the Demos were a decent team. They played their role well. Doesn't mean that's an act I find particulary compelling nor very entertaining to watch.

 

Back to tag team wrestling and P-G13.

[Matt D]

They do everything right, while dealing with extreme confines that many of the other teams on this list probably wouldn't be able to deal with nearly as well, getting over to a large degree, both as faces and as heels, and putting forth a diverse range of matches where they can work as bullying heels, chickenshit heels, dominating faces, even-stevens faces, underdog faces, and blisteringly pissed off faces (see Brainbusters matches).

 

And they do all of this while changing up the when and the how of what they do on an almost nightly basis, even against the same opponents, which is the one thing in wrestling that almost no one does regularly.

 

I will say this about Demolition. They have good matches, yes, but they really shine when you look at their body of work as a whole. There are a number of wrestlers where that's the exact opposite or where problems start to creep in when you look at the body of work.

[El-P]

They do everything right, while dealing with extreme confines that many of the other teams on this list probably wouldn't be able to deal with nearly as well, getting over to a large degree, both as faces and as heels, and putting forth a diverse range of matches where they can work as bullying heels, chickenshit heels, dominating faces, even-stevens faces, underdog faces, and blisteringly pissed off faces (see Brainbusters matches).

 

And they do all of this while changing up the when and the how of what they do on an almost nightly basis, even against the same opponents, which is the one thing in wrestling that almost no one does regularly.

 

I will say this about Demolition. They have good matches, yes, but they really shine when you look at their body of work as a whole. There are a number of wrestlers where that's the exact opposite or where problems start to creep in when you look at the body of work.

Well, I must admit, you're making a really good job at pimping them.

[khawk20]

If that ever was a rule, I think it went out of style at about the same time as disqualifying someone for throwing a closed-fist punch. I've never seen a show where they actually explained that as being one of the official rules.

I'm going back a long time but I seem to recall Roger Kent explaining why the ref was doing this in an AWA match waaaaaaaay back (Probably more than one match, actually). I think I remember that because I didn't get why it was happening either and that explanation made sense in terms of justifying it happening while staying in the mindset of enjoying the match..."suspension of disbelief" and all that.

[Victator]

1.Demolition offense is actually awesome. If you don't like Demo clubbering fuck you. I'm not gonna waste my already worthless time explaining why chocolate ice cream is great.

 

2. They had an awesome gimmick and theme. They did cool promos about punching your stinkin teeth down your throat.

 

3. They put together great matches doing it.

 

In wrestling you only need the first two things. They did all three.

 

 

Now for PG-13

PG-13 were small and trouble makers before they actually made it. Name someone else with that combination going against them right out of the gate. Shawn Micheals maybe but he was established somewhat before he became a dickhead.