PG-13 vs. The World

[S.L.L.]

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.

Porn is laughable.

 

I don't see how it's obectively laughable.

It's grown, frequently drug enhanced men in funny underwear simulating combat in a decidedly over-the-top way. Even taking away the extraneous out-of-the ring antics and excessive gimmickry, it's pretty silly on it's face. The fact that you can't see that suggests you aren't very observant.

 

At its best it's actually a pretty awesome form of entertainement.

 

Who said anything about it not being awesome? I said "laughable", in that it's crazy and weird and silly in the way a lot of lowbrow entertainment is. That doesn't mean it can't also be awesome. If anything it's part of what makes it awesome.

 

And no, smkelly, that is not at all limited to the big US promotions.

 

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.

The Demos were big tough guy brawlers in facepaint. It's not just that they're not exceptionally "laughable" for 80's WWF, it's that they're not exceptionally "laughable" for professional wrestling, period. What place and what time in wrestling history does "big tough guy brawler in face paint" stand out as being over the top bizzare?

[Mr Wrestling X]

I really dislike this whole 'high brow/low brow' nonsense. Yes, wrestling could be classed as low brow entertainment, but then you could argue that any sport or 'sports entertainment' could be classed as 'low brow'. Think of all the showboating built around professional boxing, including promos, video packages, weigh in confrontations and brawls and anything else. Just because its a competitive sport, doesn't take away from the fact thats got a major entertainment factor to it.

 

Vince McMahon apparently has an obsession with reforming his product into 'high brow' entertainment. I just don't get why people see professional wrestling as a lower form of culture? No longer is it associated with traveling carnivals and an overly secretive inner circle dedicated to preserving kayfabe. Professional wrestlers are as much role models (those who don't screw up by taking shortcuts) as any other athlete. They are instantly recognisable people, whereas, in the old days wrestlers would rarely be recognised outside of the squared circle.

 

Most of the acting parts of wrestling (promos, interviews, etc) are laughable, but thats to be expected because wrestlers don't all go through drama school, therefore they are usually full of overly hammy, and sometimes nonsensical remarks.

[JerryvonKramer]

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.

 

I'll take these:

 

1. I'll have to take your word for that. I'm going mainly on hearsay. In shoots, the oldtimers always rip on the current product for its lack of basic psychology and basics; a common criticism is that they do too much. The only match I've watched on Raw in the past 3 years was a random Ziggler match and he seemed to be going about 200 miles per hour. I thought he was pretty intense to be honest.

 

2. I am not saying the fundamentals are not important, of course they are. My argument was simply that if "playing a role" and maintaining structure are the only criteria then a lot of guys are going to be considered "great" by that criteria. That doesn't mean that the match is going to engage me emotionally. Let's move away from the Demos.

 

I'll give you an example:

 

I could go on youtube now and look up 5 or 6 matches from Col. Mustafa's JTTS run in 1992. All of those matches were pretty much the same, same length, same spots, same result (Sheik jobs)

 

The structure of that standard TV Mustafa job match is perfectly coherent. The face comes out to a pop, gets in some early offense, Mustafa does something to turn the tide, gutwrench suplex, pin attempt, kick out, face comeback, finisher, 1, 2, 3. Done.

 

At the same time, Mustafa is playing his role perfectly well.

 

So why don't any of these matches rise above mediocrity?

 

As I've argued many times: you need so much more. Angles, intensity, charisma, the illusion that the contest means something, the illusion that the competitors want to kill each other, the crowd being into it, and so on and so forth.

 

You can argue that all of those things are ultimately the result of "fundamentals", but I'm not convinced they are. How else do "bad" wrestlers get over? And why wasn't Terry Taylor a massive star?

 

If I had to make an analogy to the world of literary criticism and theory, the approach you are advocating is "structuralist": ostensibly it's a commitment to uncovering the underlying structures of things and studying their effects, but it's also more than that, it's a bottom-line belief statement that all things are simply the product of these structural effects.

 

I can't help but feel that misses something essential about why we all love wrestling, in the same way it misses something essential about why people love great works of literature.

 

I suspect if I was forced to find the thing that I'm "looking for", it's probably some degree of verisimilitude in the performances, i.e. I want to believe the thing I'm seeing in front of me is real (or at least suspend my disbelief) and, failing that, I want to be entertained. From either perspective, Ax and Smash beating down someone with double-team forearm smashes isn't doing it. It's obviously not "real" and it's not really entertaining.

 

My ideal approach to rating matches and workers would take into account not only fundamentals and the appreciation of structure, but also some of the experience of watching it, let's call that for brevity's sake "content".

 

When you compare Demolition to, say, Eaton and Condrey, on the fundamentals they probably aren't a million miles apart, but on the intangibles it's almost no comparison.

 

If you read a match structurally, Condrey doing a dick heel spot is reduced to just one spot in the overall structure of a match. If you take into account the content as well, Condrey's dick heel spot becomes something else: something that made you laugh or something that made the crowd hot, or whatever.

 

A purely structural reading of one match looks like this: this spot, that spot, another spot, that spot again, this spot, finish

Want to see another one: spot, spot, spot, spot, spot, finish

 

Match A was good because they did all those spots and did the finish just like they were supposed to. Match B was also good because they did all those spots and did the finish, just like they were supposed to.

 

You take it experientially and maybe match A was something that had you on the edge of your seat and match B sent you to sleep. They were both perfect fundamentally and structurally, everyone played their roles well, but the point is match A was awesome and match B sucked.

 

Why? Because the crowd was hot for match A, the performers had a ton of charisma, they were believable and, shit, there were a lot of cool suplexes! Also, the commentary was awesome. Why did Match B suck? Well, despite the fact that everyone did their job, and even tough the seemed crowd really into it, it was pretty boring. For most of the time it was two men doing this fake looking double-team forearm spot. Also, Superstar Billy Graham was on commentary and he said "brother" at least 32 times.

 

3. I wasn't trying to do that, and in fact, it seems like the reverse situation: it's pretty much me who has been accused of being contrarian, because my view is in the minority here. Most of this is me trying to defend my dislike of Demolition. Only El-P has been on "my side" of that debate as far as I can see.

 

The only reason I mentioned "box ticking" is because I was trying to articulate the above: you've got to take in more than structure or wrestling becomes a cold, rather joyless academic exercise of spotting the spots and joining the dots in between them.

 

I've seen what this sort of thing can lead to in the study of literature -- why not check out Roman Jakobsen's structural readings of Shakespeare's sonnets next time you're in a library? Want to see? Here he is discussing Sonnet 129, I've included the poem for reference.

 

I Th’expense of spirit in a waste of shame

Is lust in action; and till action, lust

Is perjured, murd’rous, bloody, full of blame,

Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,

II Enjoyed no sooner but despisèd straight,

Past reason hunted, and no sooner had

Past reason hated as a swallowed bait

On purpose laid to make the taker mad;

III Mad in pursuit and in possession so,

Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;

A bliss in proof and proved, a very woe;

Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.

IV All this the world knows, yet none knows well

To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

 

 

Of the seven rhymes only the first, juxtaposing two nouns with the same preposition (of shame - of blame), is grammatical. The second rhyme again begins with a noun, but confronts it with a different part of speech. The third rhyme and the last three rhymes invert this order: a non-noun is followed by a noun, whereas the fourth, the central of the seven rhymes, has no noun at all and consists of the participle ‘had’ and the adjective ‘mad’. – Roman Jakobson and L.G. Jones

Stunning insights I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Now I've read many of your comments on the 80s sets over on DVDR and I don't for a second think that anyone actually treats matches in this coldly (and pointlessly) analytical way, but it is the logical conclusion of what you are arguing for.

 

My point is, if you were to ask someone "Well why do you like Sonnet 129?" and their answer was "well, the first rhyme juxtaposes two nouns ..." you'd probably wonder what planet they were from. Even though they are describing the "fundamentals" of what Shakespeare has done.

 

I think poetry, and by exactly the same token, wrestling, are much more than that.

[smkelly]

The things we argue about...

[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.

 

I'll take these:

 

1. I'll have to take your word for that. I'm going mainly on hearsay. In shoots, the oldtimers always rip on the current product for its lack of basic psychology and basics; a common criticism is that they do too much. The only match I've watched on Raw in the past 3 years was a random Ziggler match and he seemed to be going about 200 miles per hour. I thought he was pretty intense to be honest.

 

2. I am not saying the fundamentals are not important, of course they are. My argument was simply that if "playing a role" and maintaining structure are the only criteria then a lot of guys are going to be considered "great" by that criteria. That doesn't mean that the match is going to engage me emotionally. Let's move away from the Demos.

 

I'll give you an example:

 

I could go on youtube now and look up 5 or 6 matches from Col. Mustafa's JTTS run in 1992. All of those matches were pretty much the same, same length, same spots, same result (Sheik jobs)

 

The structure of that standard TV Mustafa job match is perfectly coherent. The face comes out to a pop, gets in some early offense, Mustafa does something to turn the tide, gutwrench suplex, pin attempt, kick out, face comeback, finisher, 1, 2, 3. Done.

 

At the same time, Mustafa is playing his role perfectly well.

 

So why don't any of these matches rise above mediocrity?

 

As I've argued many times: you need so much more. Angles, intensity, charisma, the illusion that the contest means something, the illusion that the competitors want to kill each other, the crowd being into it, and so on and so forth.

 

You can argue that all of those things are ultimately the result of "fundamentals", but I'm not convinced they are. How else do "bad" wrestlers get over? And why wasn't Terry Taylor a massive star?

 

If I had to make an analogy to the world of literary criticism and theory, the approach you are advocating is "structuralist": ostensibly it's a commitment to uncovering the underlying structures of things and studying their effects, but it's also more than that, it's a bottom-line belief statement that all things are simply the product of these structural effects.

 

I can't help but feel that misses something essential about why we all love wrestling, in the same way it misses something essential about why people love great works of literature.

 

I suspect if I was forced to find the thing that I'm "looking for", it's probably some degree of verisimilitude in the performances, i.e. I want to believe the thing I'm seeing in front of me is real (or at least suspend my disbelief) and, failing that, I want to be entertained. From either perspective, Ax and Smash beating down someone with double-team forearm smashes isn't doing it. It's obviously not "real" and it's not really entertaining.

 

My ideal approach to rating matches and workers would take into account not only fundamentals and the appreciation of structure, but also some of the experience of watching it, let's call that for brevity's sake "content".

 

When you compare Demolition to, say, Eaton and Condrey, on the fundamentals they probably aren't a million miles apart, but on the intangibles it's almost no comparison.

 

If you read a match structurally, Condrey doing a dick heel spot is reduced to just one spot in the overall structure of a match. If you take into account the content as well, Condrey's dick heel spot becomes something else: something that made you laugh or something that made the crowd hot, or whatever.

 

A purely structural reading of one match looks like this: this spot, that spot, another spot, that spot again, this spot, finish

Want to see another one: spot, spot, spot, spot, spot, finish

 

Match A was good because they did all those spots and did the finish just like they were supposed to. Match B was also good because they did all those spots and did the finish, just like they were supposed to.

 

You take it experientially and maybe match A was something that had you on the edge of your seat and match B sent you to sleep. They were both perfect fundamentally and structurally, everyone played their roles well, but the point is match A was awesome and match B sucked.

 

Why? Because the crowd was hot for match A, the performers had a ton of charisma, they were believable and, @#!*% , there were a lot of cool suplexes! Also, the commentary was awesome. Why did Match B suck? Well, despite the fact that everyone did their job, and even tough the seemed crowd really into it, it was pretty boring. For most of the time it was two men doing this fake looking double-team forearm spot. Also, Superstar Billy Graham was on commentary and he said "brother" at least 32 times.

 

3. I wasn't trying to do that, and in fact, it seems like the reverse situation: it's pretty much me who has been accused of being contrarian, because my view is in the minority here. Most of this is me trying to defend my dislike of Demolition. Only El-P has been on "my side" of that debate as far as I can see.

 

The only reason I mentioned "box ticking" is because I was trying to articulate the above: you've got to take in more than structure or wrestling becomes a cold, rather joyless academic exercise of spotting the spots and joining the dots in between them.

 

I've seen what this sort of thing can lead to in the study of literature -- why not check out Roman Jakobsen's structural readings of Shakespeare's sonnets next time you're in a library? Want to see? Here he is discussing Sonnet 129, I've included the poem for reference.

 

I Th’expense of spirit in a waste of shame

Is lust in action; and till action, lust

Is perjured, murd’rous, bloody, full of blame,

Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,

II Enjoyed no sooner but despisèd straight,

Past reason hunted, and no sooner had

Past reason hated as a swallowed bait

On purpose laid to make the taker mad;

III Mad in pursuit and in possession so,

Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;

A bliss in proof and proved, a very woe;

Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.

IV All this the world knows, yet none knows well

To shun the heaven that leads men to this @#!*% .

 

 

Of the seven rhymes only the first, juxtaposing two nouns with the same preposition (of shame - of blame), is grammatical. The second rhyme again begins with a noun, but confronts it with a different part of speech. The third rhyme and the last three rhymes invert this order: a non-noun is followed by a noun, whereas the fourth, the central of the seven rhymes, has no noun at all and consists of the participle ‘had’ and the adjective ‘mad’. – Roman Jakobson and L.G. Jones

Stunning insights I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Now I've read many of your comments on the 80s sets over on DVDR and I don't for a second think that anyone actually treats matches in this coldly (and pointlessly) analytical way, but it is the logical conclusion of what you are arguing for.

 

My point is, if you were to ask someone "Well why do you like Sonnet 129?" and their answer was "well, the first rhyme juxtaposes two nouns ..." you'd probably wonder what planet they were from. Even though they are describing the "fundamentals" of what Shakespeare has done.

 

I think poetry, and by exactly the same token, wrestling, are much more than that.

 

I'm not a structuralist in literature or in wrestling and frankly don't see how ANYTHING I have said in this thread would lead you or anyone else to that conclusion. An appreciation for fundamentals is not a sign that one is reducing things to the lowest level. Again most of the time when fundamentals are praised it is because someone else will demand to know what it is that makes us "contrarian" folk dare to think a team like PG-13 might be top twenty, Chris Masters might be an excellent worker, et. We give particulars and note both the fundamental skills AND the areas where they excel but folks fixiate on the "playing the role" stuff for reasons I'll never understand. The fact that playing roles is ultimately what wrestling is all about and why guys like Savage, Flair, et are considered all time greats makes it even more puzzling to me but whatever. I've largely given up on trying to argue with innovation fetishist and I am increasingly less interesting in arguing with the "received wisdom of wrestling Gods" crowd as well. I'd rather just talk about what I like and why.

[Dylan Waco]

Also to Cox's point, I think in some respects PG-13 had an advantage working smaller time and in some ways they didn't. Ignoring for a second the fact that I don't think The Armstrongs are anywhere near as good on paper as PG-13 on paper or otherwise, I do think quality teams like them got lost in the WCW basement. To be fair some of that is being re explored nowadays and we may find some gems. But that obviously doesn't help a teams rep right this second. I also think PG-13 was better off working v. teams like The Thugz and the RnR's in 95 than they would against the Godwins or Harlem Heat in WWF or WCW.

 

On the other hand if they had wrestled in either of those promotions for a long time we would have a much bigger body of footage to draw from and that is ultimately the biggest detriment to PG-13's case/status as a top level team

[MJH]

Whilst not having 'fundamentals' is a perfect reason for criticising someone (be that "playing their role effectively" or whatever), actually having fundamentals should not be grounds by which to praise someone. They're fundamentals - by definition they should be there and we shouldn't have to draw our attention to them. Besides, you can be 'perfect' at the basics... but you're still just perfectly basic.

[Victator]

Oh that's a load of shit. It takes far more skill to do more with the basics than a bunch of fancy garbage. this boils down to

 

Reasonable well thought argument.

vs

 

I can't be bothered to find a proper counter argument beyond being good at stuff doesn't make you good.

[Cox]

Also to Cox's point, I think in some respects PG-13 had an advantage working smaller time and in some ways they didn't. Ignoring for a second the fact that I don't think The Armstrongs are anywhere near as good on paper as PG-13 on paper or otherwise, I do think quality teams like them got lost in the WCW basement. To be fair some of that is being re explored nowadays and we may find some gems. But that obviously doesn't help a teams rep right this second. I also think PG-13 was better off working v. teams like The Thugz and the RnR's in 95 than they would against the Godwins or Harlem Heat in WWF or WCW.

 

On the other hand if they had wrestled in either of those promotions for a long time we would have a much bigger body of footage to draw from and that is ultimately the biggest detriment to PG-13's case/status as a top level team

I see your point, but would a larger body of footage matter in a major promotion if they aren't getting a chance to do what they do best? Working WWF for sure, they'd be 3-5 minute jobber fodder simply based on size. They might have had a shot at being more than that in WCW, but it still seems likely that they'd wind up not showcasing their strengths and being basically the world's best State Patrol/Men at Work-level tag team.

 

I like PG-13 and I wouldn't argue against them, but to a degree, I think USWA was the perfect promotion for them to shine, and perhaps some of these other teams never found that perfect promotion. It might have sucked for their bank account that working Memphis was their best promotion, but I'd say it enhances their rep to a degree, even with (unfortunate) lack of footage.

[Dylan Waco]

Oh I agree that USWA was a good local for them. Really USWA, SMW and ECW were all good places for them and ALL would have been better than WCW/WWF. Hell I think the four best U.S. tag teams of all the 90's all came from those territories. In no particular order they would be PG-13, Rock N Roll Express, FBI (Smothers/Guido) and Heavenly Bodies. Then there was Spike Dudley who was the Marty Jannetty of his era(except more varied than Jannetty to be honest and I love Marty), constantly looking great in makeshift tags that got runs of varying lengths.

[smkelly]

I've always been confused by Memphis' history. In the 80s, it was the CWA? But in the nineties they became the USWA?

[Cox]

Their timing was awful in retrospect. Had they came along in the 80's, we'd have footage of PG-13 in a bunch of territories: Memphis, World Class, Florida, Crockett, Georgia, AWA, Mid South, Oregon, Continental...you have to figure they get at least small runs in most of those territories. Had they come along ten years later, their size would not be nearly the detriment that it was in the 90's, and since every two-bit, podunk indy promotion tapes their shows these days, their stuff would be all over the place. Either way, the footage problem gets solved. While 90's USWA was stylistically the best possible promotion for them (other than SMW, and it's kind of a shame they didn't get a longer run there, maybe if SMW had made it to 1996 they would have), that's probably the promotion with the least amount of footage out there, since they aired a bunch of stuff on TV but it was mostly clipped.

[smkelly]

Oh man. 80s Rock & Roll Express during their big traveling days against PG-13 would have been really cool to see.

[Jingus]

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.

 

Demolition didn't do the gimmick nearly as well as guys like the Road Warriors. The first time I saw the LoD, I thought "holy shit, these gorillas look like they're about to murder someone with their bare fucking hands, I am in awe of these monsters". The first time I saw Demolition, I thought "...who the hell are these chubby leather-bar rejects in KISS makeup?" The Demos, although a perfectly competent team, didn't have anywhere near the menace or the presence that the Warriors did.

 

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).

I dunno about that. Both of them tower over Rey, especially Wolfie. And I think Jamie and Kidman are roughly the same size, maybe an inch or two's difference but nothing huge. But still, yeah, your overall point stands. The Bodydonnas are the only other shrimpy team I can name from that period who achieved anything close to mainstream success in the Big 2 in the mid-90s. (You could possibly make a case for Waltman's thrown-together teams with Jannetty and Holly, but that would be a stretch.) That changed by the end of the decade, with Rey/Kidman and the Hardys and Benoit/Malenko and so on rising to prominence, but it was a tough road for little guys in the earlier days of the Monday Night Wars.

[Tim Evans]

I've always been confused by Memphis' history. In the 80s, it was the CWA? But in the nineties they became the USWA?

 

CWA was just Memphis. USWA was when Memphis merged with the old World Class Promotion. After that folded, they just kept the name till the end.

[El-P]

Porn is laughable.

In essence ? No, not really. 99,99999999% of it is pure crap.

 

It's grown, frequently drug enhanced men in funny underwear simulating combat in a decidedly over-the-top way. Even taking away the extraneous out-of-the ring antics and excessive gimmickry, it's pretty silly on it's face. The fact that you can't see that suggests you aren't very observant.

Is that more laughable than say, a clown, guys fighting to get a ball and taking it to the other side of a stadium, or guys running for 100 meters like idiots, or guys pretending to be spies and saving the world and people watching it happen in a large dark room with a big screen etc etc etc... There's nothing more or less laughable in wrestling per say than in surfing, singing rock'n roll, collecting stamps or fucking doggystyle. Everyone of those things, if you think too much about it, can be seen as "laughable". Life is pretty laughable actually.

 

The Demos were big tough guy brawlers in facepaint. It's not just that they're not exceptionally "laughable" for 80's WWF, it's that they're not exceptionally "laughable" for professional wrestling, period. What place and what time in wrestling history does "big tough guy brawler in face paint" stand out as being over the top bizzare?

So, you really don't see the difference between Demolition and the Road Warriors ? Really ? In term of what they projected during matches and interviews, how they worked, what they did with other workers ? Well, you're the one not very observant. In the realm of 80's US pro-wrestling, I find the Demos a bit laughable as "kick-ass monsters" compared to guys like the RW, the PoP (yet another RW clone team) or guys like Doom like I said. Why ? Because of their gimmick, the way it was protrayed and their work in the ring which didn't project the supposed ultra-violence a team named Demolition should project. Jingus mentionned the reaction he had the first time he saw the Demos, well my experience is the opposite with the RW. I didn't know them (no access to NWA in France), and the first time the LOD showed up on WWF TV decapitating a jobber, they made Demos look like two chubby clowns with weak ass stombs and double axhandles in my mind. And watching in retrospect today, the Demos's offense just seems weak. I'm not saying they were a bad team, it would be absurd, but to me the were just that, competent, nothing special, as pretty much as goofy as Brutus Beefcake. Not everything was as goofy as Brutus Beefcake in 80's WWF. Didn't need to be.

[Loss]

Regarding the talk of fundamentals, look at Steve Austin. Not a flashy worker, not a guy with great offense, but terrific in the ring because he was really GREAT at fundamentals and everything he did looked good, connected and was timed well. Setting aside any talk of his gimmick, those are the things people like about Steve Austin as a wrestler, right? If not, I'm not sure what it is that people do like.

[rzombie1988]

I'm going to throw in some thoughts on some teams I saw mentioned.

 

Demolition - Awesome gimmick, music and an awesome team. They got so much out of so little. I'll take them double axe handling people down over SSP's and stuff anyday. They were really consistent and really believeable. I find them to be completely different than the Roadies and don't see any comparison except for facepaint. While the Roadies are the monsters who will probably kill you, the Demos are more like boxers in a 12 round fight. They are going to beat you down and by the end of it, you will be laying in a hospital bed somewhere. They are in my top 10 teams easy.

 

Moondogs - I love the 1990's versions with Richard Lee. Lee is an all around great and underrated manager. He could be a face or a heel with ease, get in the ring and he even sang and played guitar! As for the moondogs, just two guys who were tough and brought the fight. I found their feud with the Harris brothers to be really good and I enjoyed the stuff with Lawler. I enjoyed their face run more than their heel run actually. All the barking really got over. Wouldn't hit my top 10 for workrate and GOAT discussion, but one of my favs.

 

Heavenly Bodies - I love the Pritchard/Del Ray combo. Del Ray is a great high flyer and is the stand out member of the team. He played his sleazy character perfectly and was totally hateable. I really liked their double team moves too and some of the bumps they took. I watched most of there WWF matches and I found all of them to be enjoyable. I'd like to see where they stand in the top 20 or so teams.

 

Some teams that I like a little less:

 

Original Midnight Express - I don't like Dennis Condrey with the MX, but I love him in this group. I never bought the loverboy gimmick, but when he's with Rose, it's obvious that it's just a joke so I can accept it. Paul E. was really great with these guys.

 

Badd Company - Tons of fun matches, a cool look and DDP who was fun to watch.

 

Doom - Just two big tough guys along the lines of Demolition. I never liked their masked run though.

 

Couple of points:

 

- I didn't see much of these teams in this discussion: LCO, Southern Rockers(not saying they are the best, just want to hear some thoughts), Any joshi team, The Fab's and the GdI.

 

- It's a complete farce that not only were LCO not in discussion but that there was such little joshi discussed in general. Without joshi in your list, I cannot take your list seriously. Yes no one mentions PG-13, but that's one team. No one mentions Joshi as a WHOLE period. Think about that! That's hundreds of people not covered. There's a super big hole missing there and I'd recommend that Dylan should watch some joshi instead of this weeks Superstars. If you are going to make these lists, then you have to include Joshi or not bother making them at all. It honestly upsets me that Joshi gets left out since the girls worked twice as hard as the men and were always a few years ahead of the men. There's too much great joshi out there and it deserves to be watched. Any excuse for not including more joshi teams is unacceptable.

 

- I'd also like to add that people should watch more Memphis/USWA. There's really something for everyone. I find it to be very easy to get through and really believable. It's simple but effective stuff. They do tend to follow the same patterns which is good if you like the pattern and bad if you don't.

[El-P]

I think I mentionned LCO a few pages back, but nowhere cares about joshi anymore. I would easily put LCO as a top 10 team ever.

[rzombie1988]

I think I mentionned LCO a few pages back, but nowhere cares about joshi anymore. I would easily put LCO as a top 10 team ever.

Yes, you did mention them but there needs to be more people doing it. It's a total farce and a criminal injustice there. It honestly makes me angry. If someone's going to say PG-13 is better than LCO then I cannot take their list seriously.

 

I will say that I don't blame anyone for not discussing current joshi. I don't even think there's anything discuss anymore unless someone is retiring or a promotion is closing. I'm really not sure how anyone could possibly care about it at this point. It's too hard with the delays in getting footage(if we get any at all) and how minor league all of the companies are. Even my hardcore friends in Japan don't bother much now. I knew NEO closing would kill Joshi, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

[S.L.L.]

Porn is laughable.

In essence ? No, not really. 99,99999999% of it is pure crap.

Who said anything about it not being crap? I said it was laughable. Pick an argument and stick to it already.

 

Is that more laughable than say, a clown, guys fighting to get a ball and taking it to the other side of a stadium, or guys running for 100 meters like idiots, or guys pretending to be spies and saving the world and people watching it happen in a large dark room with a big screen etc etc etc...

Yes.

 

There's nothing more or less laughable in wrestling per say than in surfing, singing rock'n roll, collecting stamps or fucking doggystyle. Everyone of those things, if you think too much about it, can be seen as "laughable".

Sure, if you think too much about it. With wrestling you don't have to think too much. It's pretty obvious on the surface level. In fact, you probably have to think about it too much to see it as something serious. If you think too much about anything, it can become serious business.

 

So, you really don't see the difference between Demolition and the Road Warriors ? Really ? In term of what they projected during matches and interviews, how they worked, what they did with other workers ?

 

Where did I say that? I was responding to you saying their gimmick was ridiculous to anyone over 12. "Big tough guy brawler in face paint" is a pretty typical wrestling gimmick. Pick an argument and stick to it already.

 

In the realm of 80's US pro-wrestling, I find the Demos a bit laughable as "kick-ass monsters" compared to guys like the RW, the PoP (yet another RW clone team) or guys like Doom like I said. Why ? Because of their gimmick, the way it was protrayed and their work in the ring which didn't project the supposed ultra-violence a team named Demolition should project. Jingus mentionned the reaction he had the first time he saw the Demos, well my experience is the opposite with the RW. I didn't know them (no access to NWA in France), and the first time the LOD showed up on WWF TV decapitating a jobber, they made Demos look like two chubby clowns with weak ass stombs and double axhandles in my mind. And watching in retrospect today, the Demos's offense just seems weak.

 

See, that criticism makes sense. Don't agree with all of it, but I understand it.

 

I'm not saying they were a bad team, it would be absurd, but to me the were just that, competent, nothing special, as pretty much as goofy as Brutus Beefcake. Not everything was as goofy as Brutus Beefcake in 80's WWF. Didn't need to be.

Overly excitable guy with tassles is too over the top for wrestling? Are you sure you've actually seen wrestling before?

[El-P]

Sure, if you think too much about it. With wrestling you don't have to think too much. It's pretty obvious on the surface level. In fact, you probably have to think about it too much to see it as something serious. If you think too much about anything, it can become serious business.

I disagree. Thinking too much about anything doesn't make it serious, it makes it absurd most of the time.

 

In the realm of 80's US pro-wrestling, I find the Demos a bit laughable as "kick-ass monsters" compared to guys like the RW, the PoP (yet another RW clone team) or guys like Doom like I said. Why ? Because of their gimmick, the way it was protrayed and their work in the ring which didn't project the supposed ultra-violence a team named Demolition should project. Jingus mentionned the reaction he had the first time he saw the Demos, well my experience is the opposite with the RW. I didn't know them (no access to NWA in France), and the first time the LOD showed up on WWF TV decapitating a jobber, they made Demos look like two chubby clowns with weak ass stombs and double axhandles in my mind. And watching in retrospect today, the Demos's offense just seems weak.

 

See, that criticism makes sense. Don't agree with all of it, but I understand it.

Cool. That's what I mean. And I don't expect everyone will agree with me. Matt seems to think they were great and makes a pretty good job pimping them. I'm cool with that.

 

I'm not saying they were a bad team, it would be absurd, but to me the were just that, competent, nothing special, as pretty much as goofy as Brutus Beefcake. Not everything was as goofy as Brutus Beefcake in 80's WWF. Didn't need to be.

Overly excitable guy with tassles is too over the top for wrestling? Are you sure you've actually seen wrestling before?

 

You're not reading what I wrote. I said the Demos, who were supposed to be this killer team, were essentially as goofy as Brutus Beefcake to me. I also said that was probably perfect for the 80's WWF product marketed toward kids. That said, not everyone in WWF was goofy as Brutus or the Demos. Well, most of them were, but that's why the product wasn't that great.

[Victator]

So, you really don't see the difference between Demolition and the Road Warriors ? Really ?

Sure Demolition was a much better team.

[Bob Morris]

This has been an interesting thread to follow. Just a few points I'll touch upon:

 

* Is the point of this thread to argue which tag teams were best for the "complete package as wrestlers" or to argue about who are the best workers? "Worker" does not equal "wrestler," as the former refers to one aspect of a wrestler while the latter refers to every aspect he brings to the table... along with workrate, you have charisma, interview ability, drawing power and other factors.

 

So if you were to say "American Dragon at his best is always a better worker than Hulk Hogan at his best" I would agree. But to say that means AD is a better wrestler than Hulk Hogan... well, I don't buy it and never will.

 

So when we talk about Steiners vs. PG-13... well, I haven't see as many PG-13 matches as I have Steiners matches, but I could see the argument that PG-13 are better workers. But better wrestlers is another issue... I'd have to look at every element they brought to the table. Steiners struck me as more charismatic, for example, and regardless of how it happened, the Steiners did gain a higher profile than PG-13.

 

Hey, I won't argue that a wrestler who didn't hit the "big time" would be a better worker than one who did. Better wrestler, though, is another issue.

 

* I don't really see how Demoltion was that gimmicky. I wouldn't put them in the top 20 tag teams of all time, but they were effective in their role and I loved how they were the type of team that would just beat their opponents down until they were ready to finish them off and they did a good job of the "cut the ring in half" tactic. And while I wouldn't call their interviews top notch, I thought they were fine with Ax having the raspy voice and Smash sounding angry.

 

Now, if we want to talk really gimmicky, we can talk about Repo Man.

 

Seriously, I personally see the "gimmicky" aspect different depending on what we are looking at. Demolition's gimmick was no more gimmicky than the Road Warriors or Powers of Pain, IMO, just as Brutus Beefcake's heel gimmick didn't strike me as more gimmicky than others who used the "arrogant, good looking punk" gimmick.

 

But that being said, the "Barber" gimmick was only going to get over with the demographic WWF targeted at the time.

 

* I agree about Harlem Heat... in particular, Stevie Ray. Booker T got better when he had his first singles run and I can think of plenty of good, and a few great, matches he had in singles, but Stevie Ray is another story... he may be our top candidate for Worst Wrestler Ever.

[Matt D]

There are two things to keep in mind, Re: Repo Man. One is that he patterned the character after the Frank Gorshin Riddler. Two is that he really, really wanted to be a face with the character.