Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 3

[JerryvonKramer]

Finished disc one of Cornette Guest booker now, and although Funk as IC champ in 2001 is a bit strange, I can see what he's doing. He was accused of being out of touch and "too old school", how is the concept of worked shoots too old school? Pretty radical for 2001, or even now.

[rzombie1988]

Finished disc one of Cornette Guest booker now, and although Funk as IC champ in 2001 is a bit strange, I can see what he's doing. He was accused of being out of touch and "too old school", how is the concept of worked shoots too old school? Pretty radical for 2001, or even now.

Worked shoots...that's Gotch/Hackensmidt in 1904 right there.

[JerryvonKramer]

[Jingus]

The problems are twofold. First of all, his worked shoot ideas are nearly identical to the same bullshit that Russo completely ruined WCW with. The idea that the Attitude-era audience would be captivated by the idea that the wrestlers might "really" fight and that one faction "really" wants to hurt the other is just stupid. Remember all the huge success that Brawl 4 All never had? And secondly, his ideas of who would be good as WCW's top guys are really out of date. He's listing Rick Steiner, Dustin Rhodes, and Terry Funk as the dudes who should be leading the invasion in 2001. His concepts here are nearly as awful as what actually happened during the Invasion.

[Loss]

Finished disc one of Cornette Guest booker now, and although Funk as IC champ in 2001 is a bit strange, I can see what he's doing. He was accused of being out of touch and "too old school", how is the concept of worked shoots too old school? Pretty radical for 2001, or even now.

I think he was out of touch not necessarily in his ideas, but in who he selected to be the principles of the Invasion angle.

[Victator]

Does anybody know of a place I can find Continental Wrestling results for 1988? My first live show was a CWF show from summer of 88 and I would like to find the full results. The only thing I remember is Lord Humongus took on Detroit Demolition.

[Strummer]

Interesting article on wwe.com where Jim Ross theorizes that Vince's early traditional "hold by hold" broadcasting style influenced the sports entertainment expansion of the mid 80s. I've always sort of thought the same thing. He changed his style so much during that transition.

[rzombie1988]

Does anybody know of a place I can find Continental Wrestling results for 1988? My first live show was a CWF show from summer of 88 and I would like to find the full results. The only thing I remember is Lord Humongus took on Detroit Demolition.

Try the kayfabe memories message board. Someone is bound to know the show you went to there. It's definitely between May and August of 1988, so that's a starting point.

[Victator]

Thanks, I went thru the 88 Observers and came up empty.

[Coffey]

I still haven't seen past week 1 -- ended up watching some AWA instead. So he hasn't mentioned Funk or Dusty yet. I was just entertained by the promos he cut on behalf of Vince and co and by his massive rant preceding that..

I like Jim Cornette, he's really charismatic. I can listen to him talk about wrestling all day. Especially when he's going off on people. His re-telling of the Boogeyman character in OVW was great. I just think he's a creative mind that knows so much about wrestling that he would be beneficial, he would just work better in group because he needs a filter creatively.

 

 

You realize by describing him like that you make him sound like a more personable version of Russo.

 

Although Cornette is a wrestling guy & Russo wasn't, I don't think it's really that far off base. It might have been at one time but I don't think it is anymore. And I would point to Ring of Honor as my defense. Cornette obviously knows a lot about the business & the history of wrestling but his ideas are really outdated. Just like Roddy Piper isn't controversial anymore, like he thinks he is. The business is passing these guys by.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm curious about something, want to know what you guys think. Undertaker left in mid-1999 (or maybe sometime later in the year, it's all fuzzy to me), and came back the following year with the biker gimmick. I have a bit of a hackneyed theory that he changed his gimmick (which was very evil, close to Satanic by the time he left) because of his role in beating Austin for the title the night Owen was killed in the middle of the ring. I haven't heard any other reasons why he (alone or maybe in collaboration with Vince and/or the writers) chose to change the gimmick, but if any of you know more about this I'd like to hear about it.

 

It's a sad bit of irony, that on top of that incident, his first match was Bret's first match after his other brother had passed away.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

The problems are twofold. First of all, his worked shoot ideas are nearly identical to the same bullshit that Russo completely ruined WCW with. The idea that the Attitude-era audience would be captivated by the idea that the wrestlers might "really" fight and that one faction "really" wants to hurt the other is just stupid. Remember all the huge success that Brawl 4 All never had? And secondly, his ideas of who would be good as WCW's top guys are really out of date. He's listing Rick Steiner, Dustin Rhodes, and Terry Funk as the dudes who should be leading the invasion in 2001. His concepts here are nearly as awful as what actually happened during the Invasion.

Worked shoots are bad because they're all either very contrived or poorly executed. Worked shoots make sense on paper, but it makes no sense in practice because worked shoots are attempts at artificially generating heat in a feud such that the heat will lead to excess PPV buys. But that never works out in practice because feuds with organically built heat are teased to the audience for a very long time such that the audience can feel the tension in ways that the company itself often misses. Think Bret/Shawn in 1997, where the Survivor Series did a good number. Vince Russo's booking philosophy seems to be that Hart/Michaels type heat can be created artificially, not realizing that the viewing audience can see right through that, which is why it's so contrived or often comes off so poorly.

 

Even the Punk shoot, unbeknownst to many who live in the smark pro-wrestling bubble, fail to realize just how poorly that shoot came off to casual viewers, who often wondered "Why is this guy blasting his own boss and company like that on TV?" The intrigue with Punk was the prospect of walking out of the company with the belt, imo, not the shoot itself, which seemed to excite smarks more than any other group and left the marks a bit confused. Worked shoots, imo, just miss the art of storytelling.

 

Just a disclaimer, I'm not lecturing to you but am adding to you.

 

I'd have to hear Cornette's entire booking myself, but the sketch seems hokey, honestly. But I also feel that the historiography of the invasion angle is flawed as well. But I'd want to get more details and then justify my argument better. I can, however, give the board a sketch in terms of the optimization angle and the contractual parameters at work.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I'm curious about something, want to know what you guys think. Undertaker left in mid-1999 (or maybe sometime later in the year, it's all fuzzy to me), and came back the following year with the biker gimmick. I have a bit of a hackneyed theory that he changed his gimmick (which was very evil, close to Satanic by the time he left) because of his role in beating Austin for the title the night Owen was killed in the middle of the ring. I haven't heard any other reasons why he (alone or maybe in collaboration with Vince and/or the writers) chose to change the gimmick, but if any of you know more about this I'd like to hear about it.

 

It's a sad bit of irony, that on top of that incident, his first match was Bret's first match after his other brother had passed away.

Undertaker always seemed to justify it as an evolution in the character of the Undertaker. I remember around in 1999 in his Satanic phase that they'd have drawings of the Undertaker on a motorcycle. Does anyone else remember this, or am I being crazy? Whatever the case, his motorcycle act wasn't that shocking to me, though it was very awkward since there was no build to it.

[Victator]

He was slowly losing the demonic trappings. In a promo with Big Show he talked about riding motorcycles in the desert.

[flyonthewall2983]

I can buy that, a little. He was starting to come into his own in interviews, more personable. He was even interviewed for the A&E biography on Mick Foley, quasi-in character. I'd always wished he stuck with the biker character, it seemed a good way for him to ride out (literally) his career.

[goodhelmet]

Has Pedro Morales ever been in a good match?

 

Yes!!!!

 

 

He had really good matches with Patera and Buddy Rose in 1980 and was fucking OVER!!! If you want a guy like Harley Race who was breaking out 30 moves a match, not going to like him. If you enjoyed Jim Duggan in Mid South because of how chrismatic he was, I could see you digging Pedro.

[Jingus]

Pedro always struck me as a shittier version of Bruno. Morales basically did the same shtick in the ring that Sammartino did, but wasn't nearly as good at it. Pedro often looked lethargic and bored in there, and his "fired-up" comebacks were frequently rather lukewarm.

 

He was slowly losing the demonic trappings. In a promo with Big Show he talked about riding motorcycles in the desert.

And he was wearing different stuff, too. Right before he took time off, he showed up on television wearing biker-ish street clothes and even sunglasses. Seems like he was already headed in that direction, but his injury leave made the gimmick transition much more abrupt upon his return.

[goc]

In the past 5 years is there any wrestler that has benefited more from their last name than Ted Dibiase? If his dad wasn't the Million Dollar Man I don't see any way that he would still be employed by WWE.

[rovert]

Bruce Mitchell had a bit of a moan about the "alternative reality" that exists online on the second of his weekend audios. The "alternative reality" being the opinions associated with the unnamed board DVDR board and here I guess about Kurt Angle not being a good worker and likewise Bruiser Brody. On the former he thinks people neglect the concept that exciting the crowd make a good worker and with Brody people neglect the context of the time, his character and promotion(s) he was operating in. Along with the suggestion that they were poor historians as they are watching in a distorted fashion by not talking to people were around at the time and getting a feel for the context that way. He cited the reaction to an AJPW match where Brody & Windham were in the ring and Brody just steamrollers Barry in a match which lead to comments about how terrible and selfish Brody was. Bruce felt that those responding where the ignoring the context - Brody being the mega star and it being Barry's first tour.

 

He did admit he was generalising but there was validity to what he was saying....

[soup23]

Eh what can you say, I can't help that I am 26 years old now and was 1 when bruiser brody died. I can only look at it in the context of today's time and there was significantly better brawlers then than whatever he did in the ring. I think Will summed it up great one time by explaining that based on Brody's entrances and look you expect the craziest brawling you have ever seen, then the match begins and you feel let down.

[Loss]

Exciting the crowd makes a good worker. What are his thoughts on Hulk Hogan?

[rovert]

Exciting the crowd makes a good worker. What are his thoughts on Hulk Hogan?

I am not totally sure. As he mostly talks about Hulk Hogan through gritted teeth being the yuky alternative to his NWA and Ric Flair. He is far more likely to reference how Hulk wrapped himself in the flag and lied on Arsenio than his in ring work. I might be charicturing Bruce but it isn't that off base.

[Matt D]

Eh what can you say, I can't help that I am 26 years old now and was 1 when bruiser brody died. I can only look at it in the context of today's time and there was significantly better brawlers then than whatever he did in the ring. I think Will summed it up great one time by explaining that based on Brody's entrances and look you expect the craziest brawling you have ever seen, then the match begins and you feel let down.

The interviews are the worst. You see this guy standing next to some poor shlub of an interviewer and he looks like he's just a crazy, madman who's about to put fear into your heart and then he sounds a little like your creepy uncle who spends every family gathering sleeping on the couch.

 

Also, it's not like we look at things with anything but open and oft-discussed criteria. When we say Kurt Angle is terrible, we explain why we think so and it's all reasonable. Other people might use other criteria to say he's excellent and I think we'd generally acknowledge he's successful along some of those lines. It's just not what we care about (using generalizations again). Tastes change. People here and on DVDVR generally say "Yes, he was thought to be good at the time when these traits were considered more important, but looking back with the additional footage we have and now that we find these other traits more important, we don't find him to be good at all." That's all people are saying. How is that anything but reasonable?

 

It's all opinion, since wrestling is an art form. What's most important if you're making claims is to acknowledge what you're talking about and how you came to those conclusions. When it comes to things like drawing, a lot of people go well out of their way to try to back up what they're saying. Dylan can make a case for the High Flyers drawing better than the Midnight Express. He's not just saying that because it's a fun whim for him. He's looked at this stuff in detail.

[kjh]

Along with the suggestion that they were poor historians as they are watching in a distorted fashion by not talking to people were around at the time and getting a feel for the context that way. He cited the reaction to an AJPW match where Brody & Windham were in the ring and Brody just steamrollers Barry in a match which lead to comments about how terrible and selfish Brody was. Bruce felt that those responding where the ignoring the context - Brody being the mega star and it being Barry's first tour.

“He had an air about him that got him over almost everywhere he went. On the other hand, he took advantage of that attitude, too. If you were in the ring with him, if you didn’t have the guts to cut him off, he’d just eat you alive.” — Harley Race, former NWA world heavyweight champion.

 

Just one example, but there's plenty of people around at the time who thought Brody was selfish both in and out of the ring.

[Matt D]

Bruce Mitchell had a bit of a moan about the "alternative reality" that exists online on the second of his weekend audios. The "alternative reality" being the opinions associated with the unnamed board DVDR board and here I guess about Kurt Angle not being a good worker and likewise Bruiser Brody. On the former he thinks people neglect the concept that exciting the crowd make a good worker and with Brody people neglect the context of the time, his character and promotion(s) he was operating in. Along with the suggestion that they were poor historians as they are watching in a distorted fashion by not talking to people were around at the time and getting a feel for the context that way. He cited the reaction to an AJPW match where Brody & Windham were in the ring and Brody just steamrollers Barry in a match which lead to comments about how terrible and selfish Brody was. Bruce felt that those responding where the ignoring the context - Brody being the mega star and it being Barry's first tour.

 

He did admit he was generalising but there was validity to what he was saying....

Actually,the other thing is this. When looking at the old stuff, the people doing it (myself included but I'm a pretty small voice in the grand scheme of things. I don't think anyone really pays attention to me relative to other people) are not just shitting on everything and not every idea is revisionist. For every stock pick that goes down, there's one that goes up, using the same criteria.