Best U.S. Worker Of The 90's?

[Mad Dog]

I liked him a lot in SMW and thought he was their best overall talent. I'm still working through SMW right now and I plan to start buying the big ECW Hardcore TV sets next year so maybe I'll change my tune as I'll probably be seeing a ton of his stuff the next few years.

[El-P]

Just to put things in perspective :

 

Arn : 1990-1996

Steamboat : 1990-1994

Benoit : 1993 / 1995-1999

Eddie : 1995-1999

Rey : 1995-1999

Scorp : 1993 - 1999

Vader : 1992 - 1998

Pillman 1990 - 1997

Shawn : 1990 - 1998

 

Then you got guys like Flair, Bret, Douglas, Dustin, Smothers who were pretty much always there through the whole decade.

Is that about right ?

[El-P]

I liked him a lot in SMW and thought he was their best overall talent. I'm still working through SMW right now and I plan to start buying the big ECW Hardcore TV sets next year so maybe I'll change my tune as I'll probably be seeing a ton of his stuff the next few years.

Even without having seen much of his SMW work, Candido is a very viable candidate to me on the strenghts of his WWF and ECW run.

[Mad Dog]

Waltman: 1991-1999

 

Shane Douglas... he was probably 1992-1997ish. If you go back and watch that 1991 WWF run, he was atrociously awful in it. Awful matches, his promos are so awful that I actually start turning red with embarrassment. And I tend to think he wasn't that good once he got to WCW and he was kind of counter-productive in ECW in 1998 due to his injuries.

[ohtani's jacket]

I've always felt great matches is one of the worst ways to judge great workers, especially if we're talking in the US. for WWF it's a little bit easier in the 80s when you had so many taped house shows, but even then.

I think this is especially true in 2011 where you have guys (like me!) who think that everything is overrated and that the 13th best Arn Anderson performance in a Dangerous Alliance tag match is better than the best formerly pimped 90s match. Seriously, though, we've seen everything and thrashed it out a million times before. I think for many people it's a case of, "well, what else can I enjoy from the 90s?" Then maybe you have a guy who thinks "perhaps Tito Santana's run as El Matador is underrated", and off he goes. And I like that. I like that a lot. Lists like this should be idiocentric, otherwise we might as well look up Meltzer's list of star ratings or Loss' favourite matches and ring the bell.

[ohtani's jacket]

To me Bret has both the great matches and the consistency, with a TV format that didn't allow him to be entertaining on a wek to week basis. Bret was solid as hell during the whole decade and had the great matches scattered from 1990 to 1999. He's a no-brainer N°1.

The only problem is that he was boring as shit.

 

I don't really agree with the notion that you have to had wrestled the majority of the 90s to qualify. In a perfect world, there would have been workers who were great for the entire length of the decade but there wasn't. A couple of peak years ought to be enough.

[JerryvonKramer]

If people are considering Steamboat, should we also be considering Rude? Did anyone have a better year than Rude in 92?

 

And Ontani - I ordered the 92 and 93 sets today. I already predicted that people would piss on Flair vs. Arn from Fall Brawl but for a long time when the subject of Arn's career best singles match came up that match was never far away. That said, Meltzer never rated it highly.

[El-P]

The only problem is that he was boring as shit.

Yeah, that seems like a perfectly valid criticisim.

 

I don't really agree with the notion that you have to had wrestled the majority of the 90s to qualify. In a perfect world, there would have been workers who were great for the entire length of the decade but there wasn't. A couple of peak years ought to be enough.

I don't think it's necessary, but the fact is Bret had great matches all decade long and was consistent all decade long, which put him in a favourite position to me. The only guy whose peak would be enough to dethrone him would be Eddie I guess.

[El-P]

If people are considering Steamboat, should we also be considering Rude? Did anyone have a better year than Rude in 92?

 

And Ontani - I ordered the 92 and 93 sets today. I already predicted that people would piss on Flair vs. Arn from Fall Brawl but for a long time when the subject of Arn's career best singles match came up that match was never far away. That said, Meltzer never rated it highly.

I'm surprised Rude hasn't been brought up more actually since people talk about peak a lot. I probably wouldn't pick him, but he's a better candidate than Malenko.

 

As far as Arn vs Flair goes, it was a failure to me. Just another Flair match, and by 1995 it's nothing great anymore. Blame Flair, blame lack of blood, but it was just there. No hatred, no intensity.

Arn had a miraculous match with Luger later in the year that was much more impressive.

[Mad Dog]

I didn't go with Rude because he had a short peak and because there were just guys that were better. His Dangerous Alliance stuff was great and there were some really good matches in there but I just don't see a case for him vs. a lot of guys.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think the build was probably better than the match itself which it why it was pimped for a while.

 

I'm a sucker for angles to be honest. That's why I rate Vader-Flair highly, not because of the match, but because of the stuff around it.

 

Up until the swerve, I think the Arn/ Flair feud is one of the most interesting of all time.

[ohtani's jacket]

Rude had a nice run in WCW as a marquee heel at the US title level, but he was a limited worker.

 

Since when did Bret Hart have great matches past '96/97? His WCW run was awful.

[Mad Dog]

He had the Benoit matches in WCW. I think there was a good Disco Inferno match in there. Past that, I can't remember anything in WCW that he did that was very good.

[Matt D]

the Luger US Title two-match series was good. I'd have to go back and watch more and I really don't want to.

 

I also wasn't kidding about Tenta. He's not THE BEST, but his stuff is really worth looking at, especially now during the height of the Mark Henry push. He's a guy who seemed to know exactly what to do in the ring all the time, could perform amazing feats of strength, had the most credible looking offense in the country (maybe finisher aside but they built it up so it didn't matter), and knew EXACTLY how much to give and when to give it when selling.

[El-P]

I think for many people it's a case of, "well, what else can I enjoy from the 90s?" Then maybe you have a guy who thinks "perhaps Tito Santana's run as El Matador is underrated", and off he goes. And I like that. I like that a lot. Lists like this should be idiocentric, otherwise we might as well look up Meltzer's list of star ratings or Loss' favourite matches and ring the bell.

Well, if that's the case, then I don't have any interet in it. As much as diving into stuff that hasn't been wachted or talked about much like SMW or 90's Memphis is very interesting, trying to seek out whatever *pretty good* stuff and declare that all of a sudden it's *great* just makes everything irrelevant. There's also the point when it has to be accepted that there isnt any new *great* stuff to watch in one given era or territory.

 

Which brings me to this, there's one territory that looks to me as the black hole of US wrestling, and that's Puerto Rico. Going through the yearbook threads, it's obvious PR isn't represented. I guess the lack of footage and bad TV format is the reason, but it seems like it's the last unique area that really hasn't been talked about, in pretty much any era. Not that I think there are a lot of legit great stuff coming from there, but considering the randomness of the guys who worked there, it's probably fascinating to see what comes from this old-school territory. I picture it as an old fashioned, outdated version of Memphis mixed with tons of bloody stuff. I'm pretty sure guys like Miguel Perez Jr. would be "discovered" if we had the right footage available. Anyway, SMW, USWA and WWC are pretty much the only largely unpimped material of the 90's at this point, and I wonder what could come of it.

Sorry for the ranting.

[JerryvonKramer]

I still think there's a danger of becoming too esoteric sometimes to the extent where matches are judged in a vacuum and context is ignored.

 

e.g. Arn vs. Flair from Fall Brawl '95 becomes a terrible match that you don't "ever want to see again", but suddenly Paul Roma and Arn vs. Bunkhouse Buck and Dick Slater from a random Worldwide in 1993 becomes a forgotten classic. I totally made up that second match, but you get the picture.

 

It's almost like when you get one of those extreme hardcore Bob Dylan fans who'll no sell the original version of "Like a Rolling Stone" because they have a bootleg of some performance he did in Ohio on 25th March, 1978.

 

Do you know what I mean?

[rovert]

Arn vs Flair wasnt rated at the time it was regarded as a let down. Ric Flair on the Horseman DVD regards it as a let down/wasted opportunity.

 

LOVE both but it is the definition of average.

[Frankensteiner]

Rude had a nice run in WCW as a marquee heel at the US title level, but he was a limited worker.

 

Since when did Bret Hart have great matches past '96/97? His WCW run was awful.

I’ve been watching a lot of Nitros from 1998/1999 lately and Bret’s heel shtick was gold. From the promos to the matches, he was consistently the most entertaining part of WCW (which I guess you can also take as a criticism of how awful WCW was at the time). The buildup to the Sting match was great even though the match itself wasn’t. He did have plenty of good WCW matches though with Savage, Benoit, Flair, DDP, Luger, Booker T, Sting, and even Piper.

 

I think his WCW run is disappointing relative to what it should have been. But it’s still pretty good for what it was.

[Matt D]

I still think there's a danger of becoming too esoteric sometimes to the extent where matches are judged in a vacuum and context is ignored.

 

e.g. Arn vs. Flair from Fall Brawl '95 becomes a terrible match that you don't "ever want to see again", but suddenly Paul Roma and Arn vs. Bunkhouse Buck and Dick Slater from a random Worldwide in 1993 becomes a forgotten classic. I totally made up that second match, but you get the picture.

 

It's almost like when you get one of those extreme hardcore Bob Dylan fans who'll no sell the original version of "Like a Rolling Stone" because they have a bootleg of some performance he did in Ohio on 25th March, 1978.

 

Do you know what I mean?

I know that it could be a completely valid thing. People's opinions change and wrestling is a subjective art form. I could absolutely see myself liking a Paul Roma and Arn vs Bunkhouse buck and Dick Slater match more than Arn vs Flair on PPV(I really like Arn's transition after the Flair Flip, though it's a bit lessened since he does it on TV shortly thereafter, but I agree that the match isn't nearly as good as it should have been).

 

My favorite WCW match of 93 is a Blonds vs Scorpio+Bagwell match from Worldwide, and I feel pretty confident about that. And some of my favorite WCW 95 stuff is WCW Prime tags with the Armstrongs or Lightning Express and Bunk/Slater. And that's not me trying to be obscure or indy or bucking trends. It's because there are elements in those matches I like more.

 

It's only a problem if you try to come up with some reason to make it a problem.

 

There are no objective best matches. There's no dogma here. There's a big note on this very site about why we all like wrestling and what we like about it. I think that we're as self-aware as anyone, and think as metatextually as anyone about this stuff. I don't think there's any big "danger" here at all.

[FLIK]

Judging this sort of thing by the number of great matches a worker had doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Look at Eddie Guerrero's 1997: great heel turn, fantastic acting, but all he has to show for it match wise is one all-time great match against Rey Mysterio, Jr. and one or two other TV matches against him. Even if you look at his US work from '94-99 it's hard to find too many truly great matches yet many people liked Eddie as a worker and would consider him for the top 10 on that basis.

Anyway, this is a tricky subject for the precise reason that there weren't endless great matches from US workers in the 90s. Personally, I would place consistency and "solid, but truly entertaining" above any other criteria. Hell, going off the deep end for a second, Arn's contribution to the Studd Stable feud is better in my eyes than anything Shawn Michaels did in the entire decade. But if matches are the criteria, I'd like to see the winner.

I sort of agree. There's a lot of people who fall into the catagory of "better then the amount of great matches may indicate". I've been thinking a lot about Regal lately in that for a guy who's widely considered one of the most talented wrestlers ever and has been working reg in the US big leauges for near 20 years his list of 4*+ MOTYC lvl matches isn't all that big.

 

That said, you're selling a lot of people short by generalising to that degree as there's def some guys, including Bret, that I think have a large enough volume of great stuff to back up their case.

 

He had the Benoit matches in WCW. I think there was a good Disco Inferno match in there. Past that, I can't remember anything in WCW that he did that was very good.

I really liked Flair/Bret in 98 at Sold Out

 

Going through the yearbook threads, it's obvious PR isn't represented. I guess the lack of footage and bad TV format is the reason, but it seems like it's the last unique area that really hasn't been talked about, in pretty much any era.

Good point, aside from the IWA Light Weight title tournament in 99 that had the whacky mix of M-Pro, US Indy, WWF & ECW guys being involved (perhaps the most awesome looking on paper shows that failed miserably in execution to have ever taken place) i've never seen anything from Puerto Rico for the entire decade and have heard little to no talk of it anywhear.

[JerryvonKramer]

I still think there's a danger of becoming too esoteric sometimes to the extent where matches are judged in a vacuum and context is ignored.

 

e.g. Arn vs. Flair from Fall Brawl '95 becomes a terrible match that you don't "ever want to see again", but suddenly Paul Roma and Arn vs. Bunkhouse Buck and Dick Slater from a random Worldwide in 1993 becomes a forgotten classic. I totally made up that second match, but you get the picture.

 

It's almost like when you get one of those extreme hardcore Bob Dylan fans who'll no sell the original version of "Like a Rolling Stone" because they have a bootleg of some performance he did in Ohio on 25th March, 1978.

 

Do you know what I mean?

I know that it could be a completely valid thing. People's opinions change and wrestling is a subjective art form. I could absolutely see myself liking a Paul Roma and Arn vs Bunkhouse buck and Dick Slater match more than Arn vs Flair on PPV(I really like Arn's transition after the Flair Flip, though it's a bit lessened since he does it on TV shortly thereafter, but I agree that the match isn't nearly as good as it should have been).

 

My favorite WCW match of 93 is a Blonds vs Scorpio+Bagwell match from Worldwide, and I feel pretty confident about that. And some of my favorite WCW 95 stuff is WCW Prime tags with the Armstrongs or Lightning Express and Bunk/Slater. And that's not me trying to be obscure or indy or bucking trends. It's because there are elements in those matches I like more.

 

It's only a problem if you try to come up with some reason to make it a problem.

 

There are no objective best matches. There's no dogma here. There's a big note on this very site about why we all like wrestling and what we like about it. I think that we're as self-aware as anyone, and think as metatextually as anyone about this stuff. I don't think there's any big "danger" here at all.

 

I don't necessarily think it IS a problem, until you reach the stage where you are rating the Bunkhouse Buck Worldwide match from 93 above Steamboat/ Flair '89, Steamboat/ Savage WM3, etc.

 

I know that certain uber-pimped matches lose stock -- Dynamite Kid vs. Tiger Mask comes to mind -- but I think it is possible to reach a stage where things start becoming absurd. When someone genuinely thinks Skinner was a better worker than Ted DiBiase (or whatever).

 

I'm not have a go at anyone or anything in particular, I don't think anyone is obscure for the sake of it, I just think it is possible to lose perspective. i.e. pimping the unheralded and tearing down the pimped, a form of overcompensation I guess.

 

All that said, I'll accept that Flair vs. Arn isn't the best example to illustrate the above.

[Matt D]

I still think there's a danger of becoming too esoteric sometimes to the extent where matches are judged in a vacuum and context is ignored.

 

e.g. Arn vs. Flair from Fall Brawl '95 becomes a terrible match that you don't "ever want to see again", but suddenly Paul Roma and Arn vs. Bunkhouse Buck and Dick Slater from a random Worldwide in 1993 becomes a forgotten classic. I totally made up that second match, but you get the picture.

 

It's almost like when you get one of those extreme hardcore Bob Dylan fans who'll no sell the original version of "Like a Rolling Stone" because they have a bootleg of some performance he did in Ohio on 25th March, 1978.

 

Do you know what I mean?

I know that it could be a completely valid thing. People's opinions change and wrestling is a subjective art form. I could absolutely see myself liking a Paul Roma and Arn vs Bunkhouse buck and Dick Slater match more than Arn vs Flair on PPV(I really like Arn's transition after the Flair Flip, though it's a bit lessened since he does it on TV shortly thereafter, but I agree that the match isn't nearly as good as it should have been).

 

My favorite WCW match of 93 is a Blonds vs Scorpio+Bagwell match from Worldwide, and I feel pretty confident about that. And some of my favorite WCW 95 stuff is WCW Prime tags with the Armstrongs or Lightning Express and Bunk/Slater. And that's not me trying to be obscure or indy or bucking trends. It's because there are elements in those matches I like more.

 

It's only a problem if you try to come up with some reason to make it a problem.

 

There are no objective best matches. There's no dogma here. There's a big note on this very site about why we all like wrestling and what we like about it. I think that we're as self-aware as anyone, and think as metatextually as anyone about this stuff. I don't think there's any big "danger" here at all.

 

I don't necessarily think it IS a problem, until you reach the stage where you are rating the Bunkhouse Buck Worldwide match from 93 above Steamboat/ Flair '89, Steamboat/ Savage WM3, etc.

 

I know that certain uber-pimped matches lose stock -- Dynamite Kid vs. Tiger Mask comes to mind -- but I think it is possible to reach a stage where things start becoming absurd. When someone genuinely thinks Skinner was a better worker than Ted DiBiase (or whatever).

 

I'm not have a go at anyone or anything in particular, I don't think anyone is obscure for the sake of it, I just think it is possible to lose perspective. i.e. pimping the unheralded and tearing down the pimped, a form of overcompensation I guess.

 

All that said, I'll accept that Flair vs. Arn isn't the best example to illustrate the above.

 

You realize that now I want to take a look at Keirn vs Dibiase.

[Phil Schneider]

The Fabs were a really great team

[El-P]

Rude had a nice run in WCW as a marquee heel at the US title level, but he was a limited worker.

 

Since when did Bret Hart have great matches past '96/97? His WCW run was awful.

I’ve been watching a lot of Nitros from 1998/1999 lately and Bret’s heel shtick was gold. From the promos to the matches, he was consistently the most entertaining part of WCW (which I guess you can also take as a criticism of how awful WCW was at the time). The buildup to the Sting match was great even though the match itself wasn’t. He did have plenty of good WCW matches though with Savage, Benoit, Flair, DDP, Luger, Booker T, Sting, and even Piper.

 

I think his WCW run is disappointing relative to what it should have been. But it’s still pretty good for what it was.

 

Agree. When I went through WCW 1998 last year, the biggest and nicest surprise was to see how Bret as a manipulative hypocritical sack of shit was the best part of the show. Before the heel turn Bret was a non factor, although the Flair match is better than it has been given credit for. But as soon as he turned, as nonsensical as it may have been, Bret the character was fun as hell. And he did work really good matches. The "Bret in WCW sucked" is a myth to me at this point. The matches and promos are there, at least during his initial heel turn, Bret was still excellent.

[El-P]

I sort of agree. There's a lot of people who fall into the catagory of "better then the amount of great matches may indicate". I've been thinking a lot about Regal lately in that for a guy who's widely considered one of the most talented wrestlers ever and has been working reg in the US big leauges for near 20 years his list of 4*+ MOTYC lvl matches isn't all that big. .

Yep, that's why I put Regal with Arn earlier on. The great matches just aren't there. Super solid week to week, but nothing that make you think "that's great" either. See also Finlay, Fit (well, at least in the US in the 90's and 00's, no idea about his european work). Again, I like those guy a lot. DiBiase falls into the same category to me.