PG-13 vs. The World

[JerryvonKramer]

You're not going to like this, but I really don't like chocolate ice cream. I love chocolate, I love ice cream, but I don't like chocolate flavoured stuff (ice cream, mousse, yoghurt, whatever), always tastes too bitter for me. There's definitely a difference between the taste of chocolate and the taste of chocolate ice cream.

 

Also, I think the Demolition gimmick is lame as hell. Not just now, I thought it when I was hate. Like I said, I never like stuff that is meant to be cool and conversely like stuff we're meant to think isn't. I thought IRS was cool when I was a kid, I even had a metal briefcase in homage. Maybe I'm just a contrarian. But even objectively speaking: what is awesome about two fat guys in Kiss makeup and leather?

 

Maybe we've got to chalk this up to personal taste.

 

Demolition seem to be one of those teams who really divide opinions.

 

In a way, Demolition shouldn't be the team we're focusing on because this argument has been rehearsed many times -- there have been some pretty contraversial views in this thread, especially those questioning the teams you'd expect to see topping more "Best Tag Ever" lists (Steiners, Bulldogs, Hart Foundation, etc.)

 

Will and Rob also made some derisory comments about some teams I'd like to explore a bit more when I have the time.

[Victator]

Fat? Compared to who? Maybe you should stop if you can't form a real argument.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

They always seemed a bit chubby to me.

[El-P]

Fat? Compared to who? Maybe you should stop if you can't form a real argument.

Coming from a guy who said "1.Demolition offense is actually awesome. If you don't like Demo clubbering fuck you.", this is pretty weak.

And really, Demos clubbering looked weak. It wasn't exactly the Road Warriors taking your head off, the Steiners throwing you around, the Moondogs stuffing your brain with objects, The Barbarian squashing your nose with a big boot, Doom beating the crap out of you ou the Sheeperders making you bleed. Their interviews were goofy as hell, they didn't look that menacing. Was that a good gimmick for the cartonny 80's WWF, yes that was. But really, they are the John Cena's of tag team, once you're above 12 years old, Demolition's gimmick is a bit laughable.

[S.L.L.]

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?

That sounds like a good movie at the bare minimum. It the right hands, it could be a great movie. I'm not even sure how you would go about disputing that.

 

"By-the-numbers generic b-movies" were typically known for not moving coherently from A to B and failing to pull emotional triggers in the right place at the right time, if they manage to pull them at all.

 

No one is lauding competence alone as greatness. They're saying they do certain fundemental things exceptionally well.

[Victator]

Yeah sorry chief I already made my big argument. Now I'm giving what I have received.

 

But really, they are the John Cena's of tag team, once you're above 12 years old, Demolition's gimmick is a bit laughable.

WRONG

 

Just very wrong. Unless this applies to the Road Warriors and The Powers of Pain. In which case white noise.

[S.L.L.]

 

They always seemed a bit chubby to me.

For a guy who's exclusively into old school stuff, that's kind of a strange opinion. They definitely weren't bodybuilders, but that body type was pretty common back then.

[S.L.L.]

Once you're above 12 years old, wrestling is a bit laughable.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm happy to retract the fat comment. It was used more for rhetorical force than anything else.

 

I guess the comparison has always been to Powers of Pain or The Road Warriors, and they were kinda booked as a powerhouse team comparable with either of them, but they weren't were they.

 

Guys of that body type -- I'm thinking Harley Race, Lawler, Dustin Rhodes, Windham, Duggan, Greg Valentine, Arn even -- were seldom booked in the way Demolition were, as power wrestlers. Only exception I can think of is Jim Neidhart.

 

I'll accept they aren't outrageously flabby or anything, but compared with The Steiners, Road Warriors, Powers of Pain and the Bulldogs, they are more towards "fat" than "powerhouse".

 

Happy to drop the claim though, my argument doesn't need it.

[Victator]

Your argument is structure, timing and psychology don't really matter. BTW using the moves argument the Powers of Pain are equal to the Rockers and better than Tully Blanchard and Arn Anderson.

 

 

Thinking about PG-13's run in WCW and they were victims of some really bad timing. If anybody would of used them on a national stage it would of been Vince Russo. But almost as soon as they are signed, Russo gets fired. I think they made Nitro one time. But they had a fun run on Thunder and Saturday Night. In particular a tag title match with the Mamalukes and a six man with Chavito vs 3 Count.

[El-P]

Once you're above 12 years old, wrestling is a bit laughable.

Not really. The market for wrestling has never been excusively for kids before Vince Jr. decided that they needed to be a cartoon.

[S.L.L.]

Once you're above 12 years old, wrestling is a bit laughable.

Not really. The market for wrestling has never been excusively for kids before Vince Jr. decided that they needed to be a cartoon.

 

Yes, really. It's never been exclusively for kids, but it's always been cheap, lowest common denominator entertainment. Looked at objectively, it's laughable, and Demolition was hardly exceptional by that standard.

[Victator]

Pro Wrestling is awesome and I actively look down on people who don't like it.

[El-P]

Yes, really. It's never been exclusively for kids, but it's always been cheap, lowest common denominator entertainment.

So is porn. Doesn't mean it's for kids.

 

Looked at objectively, it's laughable, and Demolition was hardly exceptional by that standard.

I don't see how it's obectively laughable. When it's done right there's nothing laughable about it. At its best it's actually a pretty awesome form of entertainement. At its worst, it's hugely embarrasing unless you're part of a sub-culture-sub-group of fans like us who can find entertaining stuff in the worst WCW angle from 2000.

 

I didn't say Demos were an expection, I said they were perfect for the cartoony environement of the 80's WWF, which was in itself mostly marketed towards kids.

[smkelly]

Once you're above 12 years old, wrestling is a bit laughable.

Maybe some American wrestling, yes, but worldwide, no, not even close.

[Dylan Waco]

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 @#!*% and stiffed the @#!*% out of nearly everyone they faced, which would @#!*% 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.

I don't see how the points I've made about PG-13's relative lack of success can be dismissed casually as "excuses." At this point I don't think anyone would deny that:

 

a. wrestling is NOT a meritocracy. politics, who you are friends with and who you are enemies with matter at MINIMUM as much as talent does. arguably more.

 

b. During the time PG-13 came around there was very little room for "little" guys on the national level especially in prominent roles. There really never was but during the territorial era it would not have been near the detriment that it was post-WWF expansion. It is also worth noting that PG-13 were extremely small, even by the standards of small wrestlers.

 

c. By the time PG-13 came around tag team wrestling was low priority and no tag team was "headlining ppv" outside of makeshift units and teams made up of individual stars (see, Outsiders). The most identifiable tag teams from their peak era (93-97) were teams like Harlem Heat, The Steiners and the Nasty Boys none of whom were main eventers in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

All of those things are points that I think are basically inarguable realities of the pro wrestling World. All of those are realities that pretty clearly would have - and I would argue did - work against PG-13. Factor in their notoriously bad attitudes and if anything it is shocking that they EVER were in the big leagues no matter how short the respective runs.

 

You can't compare the backstage antics of the Steiners, Bulldogs, and Roadies to PG-13 because PG-13 had no political allies, did not have the big bodies/roided physiques of those teams and were not born out of the same era as those teams. In point of fact the most tag team centric promotions in the U.S. during their peak were the USWA and SMW - they worked in both places (though SMW was a short stop as a part of a bigger feud), were succesful in both places and in the case of the USWA/Memphis were always kept around/brought back despite their insane behavior. So in the micro they did get away with their bullshit - it's just that their bullshit combined with the altered reality of the wrestling landscape was NOT going to afford them the same chances/opportunities as teams like the Bulldogs or Roadies got.

 

On the particulars of the match v. match list with the Japanese teams I find that kind of debate almost totally uninteresting because it ignores body of work and I don't really see where I have used that to pimp PG-13 in my thread. Individual matches v. individual matches can be a piece of the puzzle but not the whole. Whether or not their are U.S. tag matches equal to or better to matches on your list (and I think there clearly are) is not terribly interesting to me in and of itself one way or the other.

[Dylan Waco]

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.

SLL covered the B-movie comment and why I don't think that fits, but three other things:

 

1. I agree that the basics have been forgotten by many, but I don't know that we would agree about where that problem manifests itself. To me modern WWE is extremely sound fundamentally. But it's not JUST that. It's that the average WWE match now is better than the average WWF match ever was in the past by a massive margin. Conversely the storylines/angles are infinitely worse now and the market has been so oversatured that it is rare to find a match that really transcends anymore even when the in ring work itself is as good or better than anything from a previous era. In other words I don't think the problem is what goes on between the bells, but rather what goes on before and after and how that effects the way we look at what happens once the bell rings.

 

2. You never said what you are looking for. You said you want to be emotionally engaged, but what does that mean? To me wrestling is essentially all about fundamentals because the fundamentals are the bedrock on which psychology is built. If you don't have psych you probably aren't going to have a good match. There has been an accusation for years now that some of us are overly obsessed with "role playing" and "structure" and things of that ilk but really that's just because those are the things that some of us thing good wrestling is built on. I think the innovation fetishist are really the group that has decided on expecting less as they seem to dismiss any and everything that is not fresh, offensive explosive, or something of that ilk. Interestingly enough PG-13 was both fundamentally excellent AND innovative so they bridge the gap here. Another reason they are great.

 

3. I hate the "box ticking exercise" type comments because they always seem to pop up when someone has the gaul to actually defend an opinion. Amazingly there are some people on wrestling message boards who are averse to the actual discussion of wrestling and just want these forums to be a place where received wisdom from the wrestling gods is transmitted and celebrated by a bunch of nodding heads and "yeps." When someone dares offer up a opinion that is not seen as suitably uniform they are accused of being contrarian, trying to be cool(?), et. When they are challenged they provide examples of things they liked from wrestlers and matches and then get accused of "watching matches through a microscope," "ticking boxes," et. It's a lose-lose. Not saying this is what you are trying to do here Jerry (in fact I don't think it is), but it's something I've seen come up time and time over the years.

[MJH]

a. Wrestling is NOT a meritocracy. Politics, who you are friends with and who you are enemies with matter at MINIMUM as much as talent does. Arguably more.

 

Agreed. But talent also wins out. If we're talking PG-13 as an all-time Top 20 tag team (ignoring Ray Stevens' teams with Roy Shire and Pat Patterson and similar who we have no footage with which to judge)... is there anyone who we'd argue Top 20 in wrestling (in any aspect of wrestling actually) who hasn't achieved a certain level of big league success other than PG-13?

 

b. During the time PG-13 came around there was very little room for "little" guys on the national level especially in prominent roles. There really never was but during the territorial era it would not have been near the detriment that it was post-WWF expansion. It is also worth noting that PG-13 were extremely small, even by the standards of small wrestlers.

 

I agree on both counts, but perhaps WWF-aside, there's plenty of exceptions (on a global level) for any great talent.

 

c. By the time PG-13 came around tag team wrestling was low priority and no tag team was "headlining ppv" outside of makeshift units and teams made up of individual stars (see, Outsiders). The most identifiable tag teams from their peak era (93-97) were teams like Harlem Heat, The Steiners and the Nasty Boys none of whom were main eventers in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

I wasn't talking about being a main event, or even near the top of the card. But not even a solid mid-card role in any major company?

[Dylan Waco]

In a way, Demolition shouldn't be the team we're focusing on because this argument has been rehearsed many times -- there have been some pretty contraversial views in this thread, especially those questioning the teams you'd expect to see topping more "Best Tag Ever" lists (Steiners, Bulldogs, Hart Foundation, etc.)

 

Will and Rob also made some derisory comments about some teams I'd like to explore a bit more when I have the time.

I know the Steiners still have their fans, but do that many people really go to bat for the Bulldogs and HF as "best ever" type teams anymore? I honestly don't know. I've certainly never seen anything that even borders on being a compelling case for either team. In fact I think the Smothers/Guido FBI was better than both of those teams by a fair margin

[Matt D]

To me modern WWE is extremely sound fundamentally.

What role do you think the agents have in that?

[Dylan Waco]

a. Wrestling is NOT a meritocracy. Politics, who you are friends with and who you are enemies with matter at MINIMUM as much as talent does. Arguably more.

 

Agreed. But talent also wins out. If we're talking PG-13 as an all-time Top 20 tag team (ignoring Ray Stevens' teams with Roy Shire and Pat Patterson and similar who we have no footage with which to judge)... is there anyone who we'd argue Top 20 in wrestling (in any aspect of wrestling actually) who hasn't achieved a certain level of big league success other than PG-13?

 

b. During the time PG-13 came around there was very little room for "little" guys on the national level especially in prominent roles. There really never was but during the territorial era it would not have been near the detriment that it was post-WWF expansion. It is also worth noting that PG-13 were extremely small, even by the standards of small wrestlers.

 

I agree on both counts, but perhaps WWF-aside, there's plenty of exceptions (on a global level) for any great talent.

 

c. By the time PG-13 came around tag team wrestling was low priority and no tag team was "headlining ppv" outside of makeshift units and teams made up of individual stars (see, Outsiders). The most identifiable tag teams from their peak era (93-97) were teams like Harlem Heat, The Steiners and the Nasty Boys none of whom were main eventers in any meaningful sense of the term.

 

I wasn't talking about being a main event, or even near the top of the card. But not even a solid mid-card role in any major company?

With their attitude problems and size who was going to give them a solid mid-card role in the mid-90's? Hell can you name ANY team of comparable size that got a mid-card role in either of the major promotions during the 90's? I'm not saying one doesn't exist but I'll be god damned if I can think of one. Even a makeshift team like Rey/Kidman were easily bigger physically (and easier to work with backstage). Scott and Steve Armstrong were extremely well connected and if anything had LESS prominent roles during a comparable period (and cumulatively and singularly they were both clearly bigger).

 

Forget for a second whether or not they would have been territory carrying stars - does anyone REALLY think there wouldn't have been far more chances and opportunities for them if they were a. 40 lbs heavier and 3 inches taller a piece or b. the same pair of guys working in Southern territories in the 80's? Realistically I don't think ANY national promotion would have ever booked them high up the card due to their size, but I could have seen them working out reasonably well in 1990 WCW. Would a Southern Boys like run there really help there case that much? They were already stars of the richest, deepest and most tag centric territories of the era they worked (namely TN indies). I don't see how being bit players in the big leagues really bolsters their case or hurts it given the overall context.

 

Not sure about the more general question regarding top 20's and success. I may come back to that later.

[Kostka]

2. You never said what you are looking for. You said you want to be emotionally engaged, but what does that mean? To me wrestling is essentially all about fundamentals because the fundamentals are the bedrock on which psychology is built. If you don't have psych you probably aren't going to have a good match. There has been an accusation for years now that some of us are overly obsessed with "role playing" and "structure" and things of that ilk but really that's just because those are the things that some of us thing good wrestling is built on. I think the innovation fetishist are really the group that has decided on expecting less as they seem to dismiss any and everything that is not fresh, offensive explosive, or something of that ilk. Interestingly enough PG-13 was both fundamentally excellent AND innovative so they bridge the gap here. Another reason they are great.

Completely agreed 100% on all of that shit and would like to point out that it's the exact reason why I'm such a big fan of workers like Evan Bourne. He's a guy who's very "fundamentally" sound in terms of how he sells and constructs his matches but at the same time, is very offensively creative and dynamic.

[Cox]

Here's something that might be worth thinking about: does PG-13's lack of major league success actually help them to a degree? They don't have the exposure they would have had working WWF or WCW in the 90's, but they also would have been working much shorter TV matches every week had they been with WWF or WCW circa 1993-1997. It might not have been as big a deal working Worldwide or Pro, but in WWF, they would have been used as job guys who worked 5 minute squashes while getting little in the way of offense. Certainly, a team like the Armstrongs, a team that on paper might be better than PG-13, doesn't have the resume of good matches PG-13 might have because they were mostly cannon fodder on WCW syndies, with only a short SMW run (~6 months).

[Victator]

In a way, Demolition shouldn't be the team we're focusing on because this argument has been rehearsed many times -- there have been some pretty contraversial views in this thread, especially those questioning the teams you'd expect to see topping more "Best Tag Ever" lists (Steiners, Bulldogs, Hart Foundation, etc.)

 

Will and Rob also made some derisory comments about some teams I'd like to explore a bit more when I have the time.

I know the Steiners still have their fans, but do that many people really go to bat for the Bulldogs and HF as "best ever" type teams anymore? I honestly don't know. I've certainly never seen anything that even borders on being a compelling case for either team. In fact I think the Smothers/Guido FBI was better than both of those teams by a fair margin

 

I've defended them on other forums. The Hart Foundation at their peak were one of the best teams ever. I can get into it more later.

[MJH]

No.

 

There was more strong talent in the bigger promotions. By no means am I saying USWA/SMW was full of crap, they weren't at all, but on the level of WCW undercard/midcard by mid/late 1996?