Dylan Waco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm going to make a statement: The Rock is a candidate based on his micwork alone. i.e. "It doesn't matter" (ha ha get it) if he had zero good matches, the level of his performance on the stick puts him in contention. How many times have we heard old guys say that you don't work the crowds into the stadiums, but talk them there? I think promos have been severely undersold in this thread. Once you take "worker" to mean more than just the matches, then Bret is no longer your automatic number 1 pick. You have to look at Austin. And others. If matches are the only criteria, then it's obviously Bret across the decade. I don't count promos as a part of "working" in the general sense and likely never will. In ring I'm no sure how much of 90's Rock had of note. 99 no one in the WWF had a good year. 96 he debuted late and was given the lame babyface act. 98 would have been his best in ring year and it doesn't compare favorably to other guys. I could see him on my top 100, but he's not a top ten contender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 The best 90s Rock matches I can think of off the top of my head were against Austin at Backlash 99 and the ladder match against HHH at Summerslam 98. And pace Jerry, I would argue that his in-ring performance did indeed matter a great deal. He wouldn't have talked nearly as many asses into seats if he couldn't hang in the ring. I seriously think you can literally count the huge draws who weren't at least decent in the ring on one hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkelly Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm going to make a statement: The Rock is a candidate based on his micwork alone. i.e. "It doesn't matter" (ha ha get it) if he had zero good matches, the level of his performance on the stick puts him in contention. How many times have we heard old guys say that you don't work the crowds into the stadiums, but talk them there? I think promos have been severely undersold in this thread. Once you take "worker" to mean more than just the matches, then Bret is no longer your automatic number 1 pick. You have to look at Austin. And others. If matches are the only criteria, then it's obviously Bret across the decade. I don't count promos as a part of "working" in the general sense and likely never will. In ring I'm no sure how much of 90's Rock had of note. 99 no one in the WWF had a good year. 96 he debuted late and was given the lame babyface act. 98 would have been his best in ring year and it doesn't compare favorably to other guys. I could see him on my top 100, but he's not a top ten contender. Maybe not a consensus pick, but The Rock had the I Quit match with Mankind in January. Outside of that, I wouldn't call anything The Rock did in-ring wise pre-2000 anything in the same ballpark of his competitors' matches. DDP's allure is somewhat surprising to me. While not a top ten, or probably twenty worker, he did have some stellar WCW title matches against Sting on Nitro in March '98 and then April '99, the Goldberg match, tags against Benoit/Malenko/Saturn, singles against Benoit, and his falls count anywhere against Macho - to name what I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 What do people think of Scorpio as a sleeper number two pick? I'm guessing the default for most people would be Shawn or Benoit, but I think Scorp's best stuff from the decade stacks up very well with there's. Watching the ECW footage he never came across as phoning it in to me and he had more "next level" performances than anyone including Tajiri who I am obviously very high on. The knocks on him would be that his Flash Funk run - while not awful - was uneventful in every way. And it's arguable that he had fewer stand out matches in 94-95 ECW than he should have with some of the guys that were around him (though I never saw him in a bad match from this period). He may not have been better in the particulars than Benoit, but I'd say he had better mechanics than Shawn. I also thought he was better in Shawn's hyped "best year" of 96 than Shawn was. Benoit was probably more consistent, but he lacks the matches that really knock me on my ass as a fan and always has. It's rare enough, but I agree with this word for word. Taking in account some void in what I've seen, here's a list that I can live with at the time : 1 - Bret Hart Case had been talked about to death now. 2 - 2 Cold Scorpio See above. I hesitated between him and Eddie for the second spot, but Scorp has more big matches than Eddie, whose work in ECW against Dean I'm not huge fan of. 3 - Eddie Guerrero Can't go to far without mentionning Eddie. Peaked in 97 and 98 in an amazing way. 4 - Mick Foley Yep. The more I think of him, the more it seems I can't put him much lower. Was around all the time, in different promotions, delivered everywhere, has the great matches. Not a big fan of masturbatory Foley like the Vader SNME or RR 99, but otherwise, Foley was that good to me. 5 - Vader Best monster of the decade. It's just a shame he was never let lose in WWF, but he still found way to deliver. 6 - Rey Mysterio Jr. Best babyface of the decade this side of Bret. Sometimes I'm midly annoyed by him, but I can't deny he greatness of his work in WCW despite some time out with injuries. Half a decade at his level justput him over there. 7 - Shane Douglas Yep. Has been underrated a lot over the years, because he was an ECW guy and the "injured champ who never defended his belt in 98". But man, his work from 94 to 96/97 is just awesome. Not in a spectacular way, this guy was alreay looking like a throwback, but he had some of the best matches of the decade, and could work with anybody at that time. His WCW work as a Dude showed some potential, and when he came back in 92 he was really good already. He has the great matches, which he why he's above... 8 - Chris Benoit I got a bit tired of Benoit by 2002. Still some fanstastic work in WCW, but he was dragged down by the style to me (watching him work DDP was kinda painfull) and he just doesn't have those great matches under his belt. Benoit is a New Japan guy to me. 9 - Sabu Fuck yeah. I even thought about putting him above Benoit, since at that time I can be happy with never seeing another Benoit match again (and not just because of the obvious reason), but I never got tired of Sabu during my ECW watch. Much better than I ever gave him credit for, was innovative, evolved with time, has the matches. Sure, he also has his share of trainwrecks, but Sabu was fascinating to watch during his prime. 10 - Ricky Steamboat Not even years to grant him a higher slot, but he was so good durin the time he was still active it would be ridiculous to scratch him from the top 10. His few years stackup very well against Shawn's whole decade for instance, Steamboat being a much better worker, had about as much great matches, and was a lot more consistent too. Really, if not for the injury and knowing what we know after watching his short comeback a few years ago, Steamboat could have been in the top 5 easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Because I've tried to differentiate between two concept: * having matches that *we* find good / excellent / great from an "this entertains *us*" standpoint * having a match that is effective in popping the crowd Brittney Spears at her peak popped the crowd. Backstreet Boys did. NSYNC did. They were effectively produced and promoted pop idols. Great music? Do you really want to have a vote on that? Hoga never did anything that was as great as the production on"Toxic". Of course it's not Spears' doing. I guess Pat Patterson never produced something as good for Hogan. But yeah, these days whatever is "effective" or "playing is role well" is overpimped. I've seen shitload of effective movies that I would hardly call *good*. *Good for what it is* rather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 If it is effective, then clearly other people think it is good. The "Britney" argument sucks. Especially if you're using it on something that has proven to have long term appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkelly Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 If it is effective, then clearly other people think it is good.Not always the best measuring stick to use though for validation. I've always liked Hogan, in one way or another, and I don't buy into the thing that he couldn't work. There is evidence to the contrary of that notion. It is common sense that shows that Hogan only 'worked' when he chose to. He worked hard against Stan in Japan, against Savage and Warrior in WM5 & 6, and the next match I remember him working hard in was against Flair in the retirement cage match. There might be more, but I can't recall any. He was probably the most business efficient super-babyface professional wrestling has ever known. He was effective in the entertainment aspect of professional wrestling though, not the 'working' aspect of it because a Good Hogan match still had Hulk Hogan in it. It is a worthy point to make that the fanbase Hogan had rode on through the eighties turned on him in the nineties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 What are the matches from his peak run (lets say 84 to 91) where he did not work hard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkelly Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankensteiner Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Since I’m at work I thought about breaking this down by year just to see how it would shake out. What I found is ’92-’94 are absolutely loaded, ’95-’97 is a step down but still very strong, and ’90-’91 & ’98-’99 are sort of the weakest (or at least the hardest for me to rank). I tried to limit the Honorable Mentions to no more than 3 but felt some years deserved more. 1990 – Ric Flair (HM: Arn Anderson, Bobby Eaton) 1991 – Brian Pillman (HM: Eaton, Barry Windham) 1992 – Ricky Steamboat (HM: Bret Hart, Sting, Vader, Windham) 1993 – Vader (HM: Hart, Marty Jannetty, Tracy Smothers, Windham) 1994 – Bret Hart (HM: Dustin Rhodes, Steamboat, Vader) 1995 – Bret Hart (HM: Shawn Michaels, Smothers) 1996 – Too Cold Scorpio (HM: Steve Austin, Michaels, Sabu) 1997 – Bret Hart (HM: Austin, Eddie Guerrero, Sabu) 1998 – ? 1999 – Tajiri (?) I’m sure I’m missing/wrong on some of this. I wanted to get Douglas on the list somewhere but was having a hard time thinking of his peak year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 To me Douglas clearly peaked in 96 after he came back from that awful run in WWF. He was on fire then. In 1998 Eddie is probably my MVP. Candido no being too far behind. And Raven (yes, I said it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Man, I just watched that Douglas/Scorpio match from '96 and I'm sorry but that was a fucking awful match, angle, post-match promo and spectacle in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Time to pimp Damian DeMento people. The world is ready for it. The days of new wrestling greatness is upon us. I'm pretty sure Bastion Booger played his role well too, those Virgil matches on Superstars ought to be revisited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 What is bad about that match? I love Arn, but that laps any 92 singles match he had to make the obvious comparison. It sounds nuts, but i think Juvy was probably the best guy in 98. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I think Juvy works for 98. I mean he had at least 3 great matches with Billy Kidman that I can remember. What about Jericho for 98. That was his breakout heel year and his feud with Dean Malenko was the hottest thing going that year. Plus, he really figured out how to be more than a spot guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollinger. Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I would also suggest Owen Hart & Booker T for under the radar 1998 picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Time to pimp Damian DeMento people. The world is ready for it. The days of new wrestling greatness is upon us. I'm pretty sure Bastion Booger played his role well too, those Virgil matches on Superstars ought to be revisited. At least it's not boring like talking about Bret some more. /sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Totally forgot about Juvy, but yeah, he picked it up while Rey was away, was a great face against Jericho, and was excellent after the LWO heel turn too. Juvy is top 5 that year for sure. Jericho was a great character, but not exactly a great worker per say. Booker T was decent at best, fucked Rick Martel's comeback, and only looked really good when paired up with Benoit. Owen was pretty damn good considering the shit he was put through that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 For 98, I'd need to look at Finlay again. He's got televised matches against Brad Armstrong, Barbarian, Jericho, Meng, Booker, Alex Wright, and Eddy, but he's also got stuff that should be telling against Renegade, DBS, and Scott Putski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Finlay was Arn Anderson in 98. Tons of good TV matches. Carried Booker T to his best stuff outside of the Benoit serie. Had the last British Bulldog good match. Yes, a good year for Finlay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Finlay is not a bad pick from 98, but I haven't watched much of his tv run in a long time. Trying to remember what happened, what year with the FBI gimmick, but maybe Guido and Smothers would be top five that year too. Really a weak year for U.S. wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 If it is effective, then clearly other people think it is good. The "Britney" argument sucks. Especially if you're using it on something that has proven to have long term appeal. Chicago hit the Top 10 for the first time in 1970 with "Make Me Smile", "25 or 6 to 4" and "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" They hit the Top 10 for the final times in 1988-89 with "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love", "Look Away", "You're Not Alone" and "What Kind Of Man Would I Be?" They hit #1 for the first time in 1976 with "If You Leave Me Now", and the final time in 1988 with "Look Away" that was amazingly enough Billboards #1 single of the year for 1988. So... Long term appeal = GREAT~! Band in the case of Chicago? Or were/are they simply an effective charting pop band? When you think of great bands that have been around since they were formed (1967), does Chicago really come to mind? I used Britney Spears because she's a recent example that I didn't think anyone would try to argue is one of the great musicians of the era. It's more likely that people would argue that see was even "effective"... that's how strong the Britney-Hate tends to be. My point with Britney is that Team Britney (her, her manager, her producers, her PR machine, etc) was a pretty damn effective pop machine through her first two albums. After that... *checks* Hmmm... You do happen to know that Britney had 4th #1 record earlier this year. That of her four #1's, three of them have come in 2008, 2009 and 2011? 6 of her 11 Top 10s have come in that period as well? Albums? 1999: #1 ...Baby One More Time 2000: #1 Oops!... I Did It Again 2001: #1 Britney 2003: #1 In the Zone 2007: #2 Blackout 2008: #1 Circus 2011: #1 Femme Fatale Her first #1 single was released in 1998, her most recent this year. Her first #1 album was released in 1999, her most recent this year. I hate to say it, but if any wrestler was as over as she was back in 1998-2001 as a "draw" and then continued to have some drawing positives you could point to from 2007-2011.... that person would be a HOFer. Shit, Edge hasn't done dick compared to Spears. So my analogy works: Britney in fact *has* had long term success. No, she's not Cher: #1 with "I Got You Babe" in 1965 as part of the Sonny & Cher tag team and then still have hits in 1999 with "Believe" going #1. But she's also not Men at Work or Dexys Midnight Runners. Six #1 albums and a #2 in 12 years... that's sorta long term. Is she a "great" pop star? I can't stand 90% of her stuff... perhaps 98%... maybe 100% if I had to listen to it 5 times in a da. But I would say she (and her various teams) have crafted an effective pop star. I can set aside my dislike for her music (and finding her to be a crackpot) to give her props for being effective. Turning this back around to Hogan... It's useful to get to that place of seeing someone who is effective even if you don't like their work because it will allow one to analyze what makes them effective. If you just hate him, then you'll toss it up to the fans being dumb or the promoters pushing Hogan down the fans throats or the hype machine or his "look" or some other narrow thing. It leads one away from thinking about: Why was Hogan more effective than Warrior? Would Sting have been more effective with his career if he, rather than Warrior, was "Hogan's Heir" in the WWF in late 1988? Etc. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankensteiner Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 For 1996, what did Regal do after the Sting feud? I thought about putting him on the list somewhere as a HMbut 1996 is probably the only year he would make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Finlay is not a bad pick from 98, but I haven't watched much of his tv run in a long time. Trying to remember what happened, what year with the FBI gimmick, but maybe Guido and Smothers would be top five that year too. Really a weak year for U.S. wrestling. I will say that there's a decent amount of interesting looking stuff on Shotgun Saturday Night in 98 but they seemed to be running 4-5 matches per show which makes me think nothing got too much time. Neither this nor that but has anyone seen this?: Shotgun Saturday Night 6/16/98; Austin, TX; Frank Erwin Center 6/27/98: Terry Funk, Bradshaw, & Dustin Runnels vs Jerry Lawler, Brian Christopher, & Scott Taylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 For 1996, what did Regal do after the Sting feud? I thought about putting him on the list somewhere as a HMbut 1996 is probably the only year he would make it. Going from memory I think Regal's best year was 94 though I could be mixing and matching stuff. I know that was the year of the Larry matches and I liked those a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.