The JTTS

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't disagree with that Loss, but the point that that deeper lineup was basically the same night after night has either been ignored or artfully side-stepped.

Why does that matter if they're not running the same town every night?

 

There are actually three reasons:

 

1. Because they were in the business of business, not in the business of putting on the best possible card every night. WWF could run more towns, that's both two towns on the same night and more towns period. Flair might have been superman, but even he couldn't wrestle 356 days a year, nor could Arn or Tully or any of the other key people.

 

2. Key person risk, see also Magnum TA.

 

3. What happens when it is the same town in 2 months' time? And again in 4 months' time? And again in 6 months? In a way Memphis is a total mystery to me and it's a minor miracle that kept people coming back to the same place week after week -- I don't know what their mixing up the guys to "new meat" ratio was like.* But in any case JCP wasn't Memphis, it was a national promotion and WWF was the competition. It's not just towns but TV too.

 

Tomorrow I will do the 20-night comparison.

 

* I'd like to mention also as an addendum, that the old territories, historically, were generally built on CONSTANT MOVEMENT of guys, not on static rosters. Unless you were a territory lynchpin, guys made their living coming and going.

[goodhelmet]

Jerry, what do you want us to admit? That the WWF was better in the mid to late 80s? That they were better at using their talent? Loss already summed it up pretty nicely. WWF had a deeper roster and Crockett at their peak used their roster better. What else are you arguing?

[ohtani's jacket]

Did Crockett really use their roster better? A lot of those houseshows look good on paper but I'm figuring the same match night after night is going to lead to some pretty average performances, and their PPV and Clash cards weren't exactly shining examples of putting together a major show.

[WingedEagle]

I don't disagree with that Loss, but the point that that deeper lineup was basically the same night after night has either been ignored or artfully side-stepped.

Why does that matter if they're not running the same town every night?

 

3. What happens when it is the same town in 2 months' time? And again in 4 months' time? And again in 6 months? In a way Memphis is a total mystery to me and it's a minor miracle that kept people coming back to the same place week after week -- I don't know what their mixing up the guys to "new meat" ratio was like.* But in any case JCP wasn't Memphis, it was a national promotion and WWF was the competition. It's not just towns but TV too.

 

Its not just Memphis. Its every single territory that wasn't national but running the same town or local region every week. If you want to say that by late '87 or '88 JCP was slipping and say it was due to repetitive booking on top and a lack of fresh matchups, that's fine. But that's after 3-4 years, and not a point that holds at any point in '85 or '86.

 

Jerry, what do you want us to admit? That the WWF was better in the mid to late 80s? That they were better at using their talent? Loss already summed it up pretty nicely. WWF had a deeper roster and Crockett at their peak used their roster better. What else are you arguing?

This. Even if you contend that the career resume of WWF's roster in the 80s may have been superior to JCP's, that is wholly irrelevant. It can only be examined in context for. that. specific. period. If Flair and Funk were to go and put out an awful match, you can't tout it as a classic because that's what their careers would have you think.

[Johnny Sorrow]

By the way, never leave out the fact that just the name "WWF" sold tickets in the Mid Eighties. So comparing roster to roster as a sole basis as to how many tickets were sold is missing that solid fact. And, as far as how much would a guy get pushed if he left one to go to the other wasn't always done by how big a draw had been elsewhere. Certainly on the WWF side of things.

 

The collecting of names without storylines behind them fighting worked for Vince, obviously. But the JCP roster had guys in programs all the way down to the opening card sometimes. And people cared about all these angles. So to me, that's a better roster, one that can work like that.

 

Let me put it this way, and this is just using me and my pal Joey as an example. We grew up as WWF fans and didn't get NWA on TV until 84. And I'm not claiming to represent all fans here, but a lot.

 

In 1986 we went to a firehouse to watch Mania 2 on closed circuit TV, even though the Nassau Coll was only an hour and a half away.

 

In 1986, we also convinced my Dad to drive us from New Jersey to Greensboro, NC to spend THANKSGIVING at Starrcade 86. Joey's folks understood our devotion to these stories that they let him spend the holiday away from his family, with me and my Old Man, also not celebrating with loved ones. (Third row tickets too, bitches )

 

Again, I'm not claiming we were a representation of most fans. I'm just saying, that a lot of the guys on Crockett you've seen over the last few years that you "don't get" or think couldn't possibly be important, were. And in a big way.

[JerryvonKramer]

Jerry, what do you want us to admit? That the WWF was better in the mid to late 80s? That they were better at using their talent? Loss already summed it up pretty nicely. WWF had a deeper roster and Crockett at their peak used their roster better. What else are you arguing?

My argument isn't with Loss -- I don't think he's been making the same argument -- it's with tomk, Dylan and Johnny Sorrow who have been arguing that WWF's roster while bigger, in fact, wasn't deeper.

 

Yes WWF had a larger roster.

 

It isn't a deep roster.

 

I am saying it was deeper. That is only point I have been making. Their argument is that positioning and booking makes the stacked mid-card largely irrelevant and negates depth. My argment is that it doesn't.

 

Nitro era WCW were mentioned, easily they had a deeper roster than WWF in 1997. Bobby Eaton and Chris Adams can be buried down on Saturday Night, but they are still Eaton and Adams. They are still good wrestlers, and still relatively speaking stars -- and just 2 of about the 100 biggest names in wrestling who were on WCW's roster at that point.

 

The argument from tomk, Dylan and Johnny Sorrow says that because these guys aren't doing anything meaningful the roster isn't really deep, it's just big. My argument is that it's deep and there's no way around saying that it is.

 

As I see it, that has been the key issue at stake in this thread for the past few pages. Loss's "deeper roster / deeper lineup" post doesn't sum it up because if you drill down Loss is conceding a point that tomk, Mr. Waco and Mr. Sorrow have not been prepared to concede. We may have reached the point where we need to agree to disagree.

 

This has never been about saying WWF were better or JCP were better. I think they both had their place.

[Dylan Waco]

I am arguing that the "depth" of WWF for much of the 80's was meaningless depth.

 

WCW in 1999 was a very deep roster on paper. Not sure that means much.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just laughed out loud Dylan, I love that on this forum we can talk about these sorts of things and come to a conclusion where "meaningless depth" exists as a concept in wrestling, it's what makes this place good.

 

If you overlook the practicalities of injury, running more towns, and things like that, then I would agree that in 85, 86 and most of 87 the depth was meaningless for WWF. And certainly in 1999 for all intents and purposes it was meaningless for WCW.

 

I think Vince and co really learned how to work with a large roster in 88 and for a stretch of about 3-4 years did a very good job and making most guys on the card mean something ... even Virgil and Duggan getting squashed by Yokozuna had in-story purposes.

 

If there's a larger lesson to be drawn from this whole conversation though it's that creativity in wrestling can often be borne out of pressure and stacked rosters can lead to complacency and waste. JCP did more with less in 86. WWF did more with less in 98 and 99.

 

I'm happy with that as a takeaway.

[Matt D]

It's amazing how much Memphis seemed to manage every week. Especially in a year like 93.

[El-P]

I am so gonna use the "meaningless depth" idea.

[El-P]

And certainly in 1999 for all intents and purposes it was meaningless for WCW.

It was also what made WCW so fun to watch though. You could watch Saturday Night and get a mini-feud between Chris Adams and Glacier over the superkick, a Bobby Blaze vs Barry Horowitz match, and Greg Valentine vs Pat Tanaka. Ridiculously random and fun.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I am so gonna use the "meaningless depth" idea.

It makes perfect sense and explains exactly what I was talking about. WWF circa Mania 2-3 had a lot of names, but didn't do anything with them. It's meaningless depth to have name guys with no programs. And you're right, around 87-88 Vince DID do a lot more as far as giving almost everyone programs and a reason for their programs.

 

I am saying it was deeper. That is only point I have been making. Their argument is that positioning and booking makes the stacked mid-card largely irrelevant and negates depth. My argment is that it doesn't.

But your argment is wrong. Names with no reason for fans to get invested outside of just names are just window dressing and no one cared. And that's fine. But a stacked card is a card stacked with wrestlers having matches that fans care about, not the names. And people flocked to see the WWF in 86 because they generally didn't care about all that. They went because The WWF itself was huge. Vince managed to convince the general public that the only wrestling that mattered was the WWF, and it was a selling point just to go to see the WWF. If Hogan was on the card then bonus.

 

You yourself said that "Memphis is a mystery" to you, as you can't understand why it was so successful. You then poo poo'd it aside as just a territory, but I think that's telling. You're having a hard time grasping that it isn't the fame or number of the names, that defines "depth".

 

And shit like "Mr. Sorrow" stinks. Don't do that, chief.

[ohtani's jacket]

Don't you think you're overstating things a bit, Johnny? I don't think I need to list all the feuds that were going on in 1986, but there were some pretty good ones. I don't know how much people cared about Savage's feuds that year, which tag teams were feuding over the belts or all the shit that went down with Heenan, Orndorff, Piper and Adonis, but they had to have been aware of it, at least the fans who also watched TV, and it was in the mags. I am not really convinced that there was ever a point in the 80s where it was the main event and no midcard angles. I just think their undercards sucked. Eventually, Vince gave even the curtain jerkers cartoon gimmicks and Superstars time.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Oh, between Mania 2 and Mania 3 Vince totally started making sure there were angles for almost everyone. And I'm not saying there weren't mid card angles in WWF at the time. I'm saying that for awhile there weren't a lot, compared to JCP, where it felt like everyone had a program. Compare Mania 2 to Mania 3 and it's night and day. But in 86 what sold tickets was "WWF" and "Hulk Hogan", until the last few months of the year when Piper turned. Hogan's best drawing angle in 86 was the Orndorff fued, because there was a great angle behind it, but people still would go to shows if Hogan was on the card as Hulk Machine. In 86 it really felt like WWF was coasting on grabbing names, giving them nothing to do, being a sensation/ hip deal, and thinking that was good enough. Come late 86/ early 87 Vince really started turning it around as far as lots of angles. And I remember Meltzer reporting that Vince considered not doing a Mania 3 because 2 sucked so bad.

 

 

Mania 2

Paul Orndorff vs Don Muraco : No one cared

Randy Savage vs. George Steele :This was a program

Jake Roberts vs George Wells : No one cared

Mr. T (w/ Joe Frazier & the Haiti Kid) defeated Roddy Piper (w/ Lou Duva & Bob Orton Jr.) in a boxing fight : This was a program, but no one really wanted to watch a fake boxing match.

 

Fabulous Moolah vs Velvet McIntyre : No one cared

Crpl. Kirshner vs. Nikolai Volkoff: Thewy tried to make us care by saying "FLAG MATCH" but no one cared

Andre the Giant won a 20-man WWF/NFL battle royal : This was over as fuck because of Perry being in it.

British Bulldogs vs Greg Valentine & Brutus Beefcake: This had a program, as it was the Bulldogs "last chance".

 

Ricky Steamboat vs Hercules : No one cared

Adrian Adonis vs Uncle Elmer : No one cared

Terry & Dory Funk Jr. vs. Tito Santana & the Junkyard Dog: Best match on the card, and had a program, as JYD was feuding with the Funks and Tito was his best friend.

Hulk Hogan vs King Kong Bundy : Of course, this had a program.

 

Starrcade 86

 

Tim Horner & Nelson Royal defeated Don & Rocky Kernolde: No one cared

Brad Armstrong vs Jimmy Garvin : This had some TV build

Hector Guerrero & Baron Von Raschke vs Shaska Whatley & the Barbarian: This was part of the Valiant/ Jones angle

Krusher Khruschev & Ivan Koloff vs Bobby Jaggers & Dutch Mantel: These two teams had some TV dedicated to the feud

Wahoo McDaniel vs Rick Rude: Also, part of the Valiant/ Jones angle

Sam Houston vs Bill Dundee: This had some tv dedicated to it , but no one cared.

Jimmy Valiant vs. Paul Jones: The final match in a 3 year long feud. And set up Manny and Rude as a team at the end.

Big Bubba vs Ron Garvin: Garvin and Cornette had been feuding

Tully Blanchard vs Dusty Rhodes : Goes without saying

The Road Warriors vs the Midnight Express: Goes without saying

Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson vs Arn & Ole Anderson: Goes w/out saying

Ric Flair vs Nikita Koloff : Goes w/out saying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And even though they were all kayfabe, only hardcore fans bought the mags back then.)

[ohtani's jacket]

It seems to me that with Wrestlemania II they concentrated on the main event emanating out of each of the three locations. They threw some crap out on PPV well after Wrestlemania III, but along with those three mains they pushed the Savage/Steele feud coming out of the show. Four feuds isn't a bad strike rate on a big show.

[JerryvonKramer]

And shit like "Mr. Sorrow" stinks. Don't do that, chief.

I hope you realise that from now on I'm ONLY going to call you Mr. Sorrow.

 

I also think that while I agree with the general concept of "meaningless depth", I don't buy that people don't care about names AT ALL. People do care about names. You might not have, but are you representative of the entire audience? I don't believe that Orndorff-Muraco played ZERO role in getting 16,000 people to the Nassau that night.

 

You've treated it as virtually the same as Jake Roberts vs. George Welles, we both know that's not entirely true.

 

I've said before that my aim in arguments is not a win-loss thing, it's to come to some understanding for the greater good. People are prone to push arguments to their logical extreme, to convert complex arguments into simplistic binaries. Nuance doesn't sell. I think the picture is not as black and white as it is being painted, even if I agree with the gist of the conclusion.

[Dooley]

I just want to add that "meaningless depth" is my new favorite ridiculous phrase and I will try to use it in any situation I can from here on out.

 

When discussing sports: "The Giants have some good WR's, but it's meaningless depth. They can only throw to one at a time."

 

At the optometrist: "Sure Doc, you might think I need glasses, but a lot of what I'm missing is just meaningless depth".

 

At the swimming pool: "Of course I can dive here. I don't care what it's marked, that's meaningless depth".

 

When reading Kafka: "I don't enjoy his work, I find his surrealism to be little more than meaningless depth".

[Dylan Waco]

I just want to add that "meaningless depth" is my new favorite ridiculous phrase and I will try to use it in any situation I can from here on out.

 

When discussing sports: "The Giants have some good WR's, but it's meaningless depth. They can only throw to one at a time."

 

At the optometrist: "Sure Doc, you might think I need glasses, but a lot of what I'm missing is just meaningless depth".

 

At the swimming pool: "Of course I can dive here. I don't care what it's marked, that's meaningless depth".

 

When reading Kafka: "I don't enjoy his work, I find his surrealism to be little more than meaningless depth".

The last one lacks the "lol" quality of the first three.

[Johnny Sorrow]

[ I don't believe that Orndorff-Muraco played ZERO role in getting 16,000 people to the Nassau that night.

You've treated it as virtually the same as Jake Roberts vs. George Welles, we both know that's not entirely true.

The thing is, the WWF treated both matches as virtually the same. Both had no build. And Muraco/ Orndorff SHOULD have had a build. When they announced the card, me and my pals were all, "Cool, Muraco vs. Orndorff" but that match didn't make or break one ticket sale. Unless Muraco and Paul had relatives in Long Island that night. And then the match sucked a giant cock, on top of everything. The Nassau part of Mania 2 was so fucking awful.

 

And as we move on, I think the best lesson to be learned here is , if you want to piss me off and send me into a crazed argument, shit on Jimmy Valiant vs. Paul Jones and His Army.

[khawk20]

I just want to add that "meaningless depth" is my new favorite ridiculous phrase and I will try to use it in any situation I can from here on out.

 

When discussing sports: "The Giants have some good WR's, but it's meaningless depth. They can only throw to one at a time."

 

At the optometrist: "Sure Doc, you might think I need glasses, but a lot of what I'm missing is just meaningless depth".

 

At the swimming pool: "Of course I can dive here. I don't care what it's marked, that's meaningless depth".

 

When reading Kafka: "I don't enjoy his work, I find his surrealism to be little more than meaningless depth".

The last one lacks the "lol" quality of the first three.

 

He just included it so the post would have meaningless depth.

[tomk]

Jerry says

 

know you don't like my football ("soccer"!) analogies, but it's like a team has a very strong first XI who could probably win the league, but there's no one sitting on the bench. If someone gets injured, there isn't anyone who can come in. There's another team who have a strong first XI too, but they also have a number of stars sitting on the bench -- or maybe like Manchester United they keep rotating them. Now the fan at home can think "why is player X sitting on the bench? He's be a star in any other team, he's being WASTED!" but that is what SQUAD DEPTH is. We can say WWF were wasteful, or we can say that they had the luxury of running many different cards of middling quality with a rotated squad, while JCP had to run almost the same amount of cards with mostly the same guys. WWF had shit on some of their shows no doubt but squad rotation means you can't always play your first XI.

Except that is not how the WWF worked in the 80s. They weren't rotating their guys that way becuase they couldn't.

The WWF was like a premier team that only fielded three strikers and a double below the knee amputee who played goalie.

They additionally had a bench of 75 other paraplegic back up goalies.

 

No one looks at that roster and says "These guys are doing so well because of their depth".

If that team succeeds it's because of the great strikers and the coaching, not because of the bench.

 

WWF wasn't booked like Kevin Sullivan theoretically booked WCW with hot gimmicks on top and strong workrate in middle.

Not booked like Smackdown title in 07 where anytime the champ was injured there were three other guys who could take the role.

 

It was booked with a couple guys on top and everyone else way below.

 

will take a look at 20 cards in succession of the same period from both WWF and JCP. Sticking with 1986 because I think it's giving Crockett the fairest fighting chance.

Why?

Is your analysis going to be as bad as your analysis of the mania's?

Do you understand why your analysis of the mania's seems so laughable?

 

The WWF tag titles regularly changed hands in Allentown, PA which is essentially a TV studio match ( while the IC or world title change would take place in MSG).

 

Meanwhile JCP is headlining its shows with the Steamboat/Youngblood v Slaughter/Kernoodle feud.The Final Conflict card in Greensboro main evented by Steamboat/Youngblood v Slaughter/Kernoodle drew record attendance supposedly caused traffic jams and layed the inspiration for Starcade supercard.

 

The difference between a title that changes hands in TV studio matches and one that changes hands as main event of a supercard is huge.

 

The JCP World Tag Titles and the WWF world tag titles aren't equivalent to each other.

In JCP the World Tag belts were essentially the secondary belt.

In WWF the Ic belt was a midcard workrate thing closer to the NWA us tag titles. The WWF tag titles would be below that.

 

Jimmy Valiant v Paul Jones army was a midcard feud. You've often talked about four and five star promos and skits.

 

Jimmy Valiant was the king of the 5 star promo, he was amazing at not just the big promos in the feud.

 

 

but would add little nuances to even the throw away bits

 

Murraco v Orndorf was an undercard piss break. Booked as such by the WWF.

 

JDW is from traditional WWF territory LA, Sorrow from traditional WWF territory Jersey, I watched the WWF in traditional WWF territory DC/Baltimore. We've all said that Valiant v Jones was booked as strong meaningfull midcard angle (equivalent to Roberts v Rude) and yet you insist that we don't know the WWF and Murraco v Orndorf meant more.

 

goodhelmet says

 

WWF had a deeper roster and Crockett at their peak used their roster better.

I would disagree with this. As I think the term "better" is loaded and unclear if that's acurate.

 

Again two shows I went to back to back in 86

 

WWF @ Baltimore, MD - Arena - January 5, 1986 (13,000)

Pedro Morales defeated Moondog Spot

Jose Luis Rivera defeated Rene Goulet

Hercules defeated Lanny Poffo

Scott McGhee fought Tiger Chung Lee to a draw

WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan defeated WWF Tag Team Champion Brutus Beefcake

The Junkyard Dog defeated Greg Valentine via count-out

Cpl. Kirchner & King Tonga fought Nikolai Volkoff & the Iron Sheik to a no contest

JCP / AWA @ Baltimore, MD - Civic Center - February 20, 1986 (13,000+)

Scott Hall defeated Boris Zhukov

Tully Blanchard defeated Jimmy Valiant

Nick Bockwinkel fought Larry Zbyszko to a no contest

NWA US Champion Magnum TA defeated Baron Von Raschke

NWA Tag Team Champions Bobby Eaton & Dennis Condrey defeated Ricky Morton & Robert Gibson

Sgt. Slaughter defeated AWA World Champion Stan Hansen via disqualification

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated NWA National Heavyweight Champion Dusty Rhodes via disqualification

The Road Warriors defeated Ivan & Nikita Koloff in a steel cage match

looking closely at the WWF card

 

Pedro Morales defeated Moondog Spot---This was booked with goal of getting audience to say "Hey I drunk a six pack of soda in the van on way to show, maybe should use the bathroom before the real show start"

 

Jose Luis Rivera defeated Rene Goulet---This was booked with intention of being match where audience got back to their seat and thinks "maybe should get some food and drinks and look at merch stand, that T-shirt looks cool"

 

Hercules defeated Lanny Poffo-guy beats up a name jobber

 

after this match ring announcer says next up is "Scott Mcgee v Tiger Chung Lee and Tonga Kid is signing autographs in lobby"

 

Scott McGhee fought Tiger Chung Lee to a draw- Booked to elicit "boring chants, make audience go "Hey, who is that signing autographs again, lets check out merch stand" and to kill heat before main event

 

WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan defeated WWF Tag Team Champion Brutus Beefcake- Hey it's the main event

 

After main event announcer lists program for next show and then announces

 

The Junkyard Dog defeated Greg Valentine via count-out- Booked to be point where audience goes " Hey I need to go to lobby and buy tickets for next event"

 

Cpl. Kirchner & King Tonga fought Nikolai Volkoff & the Iron Sheik to a no contest- Booked because, Baltimore has a large black population who may wait till after the JYD match to buy tickets for next show, otherwise something to watch as you gather your stuff.

 

When you compare that show to the combined JCP/AWA one, the first thing you notice is "Hey when during that JCP/AWA show am I going to get a chance to take a piss break, buy some merchandise, or buy tickets to next months show". Is that really a better use of talent?

 

One of the points that Meltzer always makes is that sports are most succesfull when there is one blow away top superstar: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Tyson etc. Booking one guy as star and everyone else as not being anywhere near that stars level has been a pretty succesful formula.

 

There are of course dangers with putting all your eggs in one basket.

Possibility of injury or guy becoming basketcase.

Meltzer has said that if Vince didn't go with Hogan, he would have gone with "Kerry Von Erich, and he would have self destructed on the road."

 

There is also the story of 96 where crowd was burning out on Undertaker (as guy way above opponents) and the rivalry with Foley reignited the crowds interest in Undertaker.

Connors-Mccenroe

Agassi-Sampras

Celtics-Lakers

89 broken up Megapowers Hogan-Savage

 

People do burn out on superstars and rivalries deepen audiences investment in people.

 

But still the booking one guy as superstar (assuming he doesn't get injured or flake out) and everyone else as not even secondary is a succesful formula and perhaps a "better " use of talent.

 

Of course one could also look at these two cards and point out how high Hercules Hernandez, Lanny Poffo and Scott Mcghee were rated on the top 100 workers list on the 84 WON annual, or that the opener of Pedro Morales v Moondog Spot was a World Champion v tag champion who could main event against each other at MSG. But that analysis would miss the whole point of how WWF booked it's cards.

[JerryvonKramer]

tomk, with respect, did you miss the stunning moment when conclusions were drawn and everyone moved on?

[tomk]

What exactly is the takeaway?

 

You've treated it as virtually the same as Jake Roberts vs. George Welles, we both know that's not entirely true.

Murraco v Orndorf is the same as Morales v Moondog Spot and George Wells v Iron Mike Sharpe from Boston Garden.

To not get that is to takeaway nothing from this.

 

And was arguing more with goodhelmet than you.

[goodhelmet]

It's war Tom.. .war... I am going to take two cards I did not go to and compare them in a minute.

[JerryvonKramer]

What exactly is the takeaway?

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5530528

 

That.

 

If you want to argue with any aspect of that post, for example, by saying that the 88 WWF roster wasn't deep or meaningful, then bring it on. I've made up my mind about 86 and 87, even if I think the JCP case for "meaningfulness" is rather overstated by some.