Loss Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 They were over midcarders. They were still midcarders. They were never put in a position to sell a PPV. Austin is singlehandedly, singlehandedly, by himself, only him responsible for the WWF's success at the time. Everyone else was riding the train. Some were able to make a career out of it, and more power to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 No one is saying that they didn't get massive reactions or weren't important parts of a hot supporting cast. But they were the supporting cast. Compare the NAO to a team like the High Flyers who most folks would reject with a laugh as HoF candidates. The High Flyers utterly annihilate and destroy the NAO as candidates and that's even if we totally exclude in ring performance an area where the Flyers would also have a massive advantage. If a team like the High Flyers that headlined major buildings around a territory loop on and off for almost ten years, setting record attendance figures in record setting feuds against a huge variety of opponents can't get a "maybe they ought to be considered" mention without audible laughter, no way in hell the NAO should even be on the radar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 "At the time" being 1998. Obviously, The Rock caught on later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wrestling X Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I see both your points, but I will say that if the WWF, gave Steve Austin the night off and did a PPV with the main event being DX (Triple H, X Pac, Chyna and NAO) vs. NOD (The Rock, Owen Hart, D'Lo Brown, Godfather and Mark Henry) that it would have sold a decent number of buys. Secondary cast perhaps, but they could still be a justifiable part of any wrestling HOF based on the numbers they were doing and their popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 That's possible. Maybe even probable. But it's also guess work which isn't what HoF's are for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Sable was at one time a bigger ratings draw than Steve Austin. She was a bigger star than all of them as well. Do you think she should go in the HOF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wrestling X Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Sable was at one time a bigger ratings draw than Steve Austin. She was a bigger star than all of them as well. Do you think she should go in the HOF? 50/50, on one hand she did what no other female performer had managed to do in years - draw. OTOH, she's not the first thing you think of when you think of that period in wrestling, the first things you think of are Steve Austin, Vince McMahon and DX. Furthermore, she couldn't have sold a PPV alone (because she was the only over female in the company = no equal footing), whereas DX and Austin could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I actually meant that rhetorically. I'm surprised that you think she is even 50/50. But to get this back to the key point, would have/could have/should have should have absolutely no bearing on the HOF. Doesn't mean it's not a topic worth talking about. It just means it's not really related to the HOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 The NAO ? Are we serious ? These guys were an intro that got a big pop. An intro. People didn't give a shit after the intro, they just wanted to chant along, the NOA matches were mostly dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 They were all flash in the pan acts. For example, the NAO were formed in October 1997 and by January 1999 were being used as singles acts because WWE thought Billy Gunn could become a headliner. They were reunited in October 1999, but stopped teaming after Gunn was injured in February 2000. That's less than two years as a hot act and really only one as in the second DX run, the NAO were treated as Hunter's feckless minions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wrestling X Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I actually meant that rhetorically. I'm surprised that you think she is even 50/50. Again, she pretty much brought back female wrestlers as a focus (although brief) in American wrestling during a time where female wrestling was dead in the water. But to get this back to the key point, would have/could have/should have should have absolutely no bearing on the HOF. Doesn't mean it's not a topic worth talking about. It just means it's not really related to the HOF. Of course, that is what I was trying to get round to, but I ended up filling in some of the blanks with speculation. Let's look at NAO from a factual perspective, they were THE top tag team in the WWF from 1998 to early 2000, they were top merchandise sellers during this period of time and they drew some of the biggest documented reactions in professional wrestling and they were both part of some of the most memorable storylines in that period of professional wrestling. They had 5 reigns as WWF Tag Team champions and were voted PWI Tag Team of the Year in 1998, their lasting appeal continues to this day, as evidenced by the reaction that Road Dogg recieved when he entered this year's Royal Rumble and the fact that many wrestling fans will cite them as an example of a popular act during that period of wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 If one or two years as a hot act is enough to get you into the HOF, then Goldberg and Kerry Von Erich are no-brainers. On a somewhat related note, what does Sting have over Batista as a HOF candidate other than longevity? The gap between the two as workers wasn't that large, and Batista blows Sting completely out of the water as a draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 NAO were the top merchandise sellers in the entire company?! Bigger than Austin? Are you talking DX merch or NAO specific merch? I'm not buying that... I'm not even sure the NAO belong in the WWE HOF tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 If one or two years as a hot act is enough to get you into the HOF, then Goldberg and Kerry Von Erich are no-brainers. To be fair Kerry has more meat than a couple of years and I could see a good argument for the Von Erichs as a unit. Not saying I would support them, but it's not a laughable notion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Why aren't the Von Erichs in as a unit already? Pretty good workers overall, and huge draws in their own right; World Class was one of the last thriving big territories, and that's directly because of the boys on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Haven't we been through all of this before? We've had this conversation at least a half dozen times, then it seems to restart a few months later like it never happened. I don't understand that. Anyway, it's not a Hall of Guys I Like. If it was, Sting would be in mine. Benoit went in because he was considered one of the top five wrestlers in the world for 15 years. The HOF is biased more toward guys with reps than guys who look good watching old footage now. I don't know how long you have been online, but Benoit had a pretty great rep before he murdered his family. Based on what I know about your interests, you didn't like him because he wasn't part of the WWF gimmick era. Sting surprises me a little coming from you because it's the first time I've ever heard you praise anyone that wasn't in the WWF in the 80s or 90s. That seems to be your point of interest, and that's fine, but sometimes, whether you see it or not, you do it to the detriment of all other wrestling, implying that if it didn't happen in the Hogan era of the WWF, it doesn't count. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I'm not even sure Benoit should be in the HOF. But do you seriously not understand why he went in? He went in based on work, just like dozens and dozens of other people in the HOF. It's the exact same reason Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Ted DiBiase and Ricky Steamboat went in. Why aren't you saying the same about them? Whoa now. Hold on. A few things. It's not entirely fair to say " this is the first time I've ever heard you praise anyone that wasn't in the WWF in the 80s or 90s". Up until very recently I had a website on which I'd reviewed every WCW PPV in the early 90s until Bash at the Beach 96. If you go over to DVDR I've left comments on pretty much all 150 matches on the All Japan set. And plenty of comments in the MidSouth thread -- I missed the boat on being part of the project, but I said plenty of things about the first 5 or 6 discs that I watched before All Japan took over. Sure, without doubt I'm someone who thinks the WWF did a hell of a lot of things right in the 80s from a booking perspective. And, yes, I think crowd reaction is as important as workrate, which I understand isn't a popular view. But it's not entirely fair to say that I only praise 80s WWF. Second, the only thing I was saying is that "based on work" is not really a metric like being a draw. There are no figures for "work" or "rep". So if THAT is part of the consideration, there's no reason why consistent crowd reaction and overness can't be too. I mean, we've been down this road so many times, but there IS an argument to say that a guy who is not over is not working effectively. I don't know how far to take that argument because it ends up saying JYD wiggling his butt is "more effective" than a sweet suplex by Barry Windham ... But it is still part of wrestling. And it, the crowd, simply can't be ignored. The argument that says "we've got to ignore crowd reaction as a measure of a guy's success because Ice Train and Virgil once got big pops" surely ignores something about a guy like Sting who was consistently over for his entire career. Why was Sting still considered such a massive asset in 1998 and given "Sting money" if he was such a failure? The promoters obviously saw value in him, and they couldn't ignore the crowd. That's got to be worth something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 The "metric" for wrestling ability is a match list. We could go back and forth, but probably the best bet at this point is to Gordy List Sting. jdw put this list together, which is a great starting point for a HOF discussion. Maybe one of the pro-Sting people can complete this. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in hisclass? 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? 17. Did he win many honors and awards? 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? 20. Was he innovative? 21. Was he influential? 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Alright let me have a go at this in the next hour. Also, I wanted to take this up with Dylan and jdw earlier but I'm skeptical as to the extent to which WCW was TRULY a "national" promotion in, say, 1992. They might have positioned themselves like a national company, they might have been spending as if they were, but really were they? WCW always seemed to stay in its hotbed a lot more than WWF until at least the Nitro era. Which towns up North did WCW regularly run in the early 90s? Did they even run places like Houston as much as WWF did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wrestling X Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Honestly, despite the fact Sting is one of the biggest stars of modern professional wrestling and one who has spent most of his career working the main event, he seems to have spent a lot of his career playing second fiddle to Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 I also think Sting WAS regarded as a draw, even if he didn't actually draw. The Perception was that he was a draw. That's part of why this is a bit of a jarring thing for some people. It goes without saying for them. "He was Sting! He was the franchise in WCW. Of course he was!" Edit: Once you get past the first few there, I think Sting does surprisingly well with the Gordy List, actually. If you put his "class" as overmuscled strongman babyfaces, he does even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted May 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? No for world or country, but for his promotion, definitely. 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? Yes to all? I knew who Sting was when I was 12, being from the UK. Although I don't know how much stock you can put into that, since I wasn't exactly your average fan. 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? Shall we say 5-6? 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? Probably not, but he did have his fair share of great matches given the right opponent 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in hisclass? Ditto 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? Shall we say 3-4? 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? Arguably yes? 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? Yes? Flair, Luger, Vader, Foley, Muta, Rude, DDP ... and yes I'm acting as if TNA never existed. 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? Yes 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? Well define "effective" ... was he effective at popping the crowd and being the most over guy in the company? Yes. Was he effective as a draw? More debatable / no. 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? Are we saying 88-89 is before his prime? The answer is yes. If we're saying that TNA is after his prime, well someone else can answer that. 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? Basically a one company guy. But he had arguably 4 distinct "strong runs" - 88-9, 91-3, 98, and TNA. Of which 91-3 is the only time he was "the ace". 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? Yes, yes, yes to the max 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? Yes, yes, yes to the max 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? To the max 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? Well who can forget the most prestigious tournament of all time? The Iron Man tournament at Starrcade '89? And what about that coveted BATTLE BOWL RING from 1991? What about the King of Cable tournament from 92? Or the Jim Crocket Sr. Memorial Cup? If tournament wins are important, Sting has a unique trophy cabinet. Anyway, 7-time World Champ, 11 if you count TNA. Important runs with the US and TV titles that elevated those belts. 17. Did he win many honors and awards? Well, look, he was massively over with PWI: PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1991, 1992, 1994, 1997) PWI Wrestler of the Year (1990) PWI ranked him #1 of the top 500 singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 1992 PWI ranked him #15 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the "PWI Years" in 2003 And to a lesser extend with WON: Best Babyface (1992) 5 Star Match (1991) with Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, and Scott Steiner vs. Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, and Sid Vicious (February 24, WarGames match, WrestleWar) 5 Star Match (1992) with Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, & Dustin Rhodes vs. Arn Anderson, Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Bobby Eaton, & Larry Zbyszko (May 17, WarGames match, WrestleWar) Match of the Year (1988) vs. Ric Flair at Clash of the Champions I Most Charismatic (1988, 1992) Most Improved (1988) And winning best babyface in 1992 is no mean feat considering all the things that were happening around the world that year. 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? Yes. His stuff with Luger, outside of that Steiners match, is underappreciated in general. He had a few good runs with the tag titles. 20. Was he innovative? I'd argue he was. The Stinger splash was quite distinctive. 21. Was he influential? I think you can see the influence of Sting in guys like Edge, Christian and Jericho. 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? This is probably Sting's main weakness as a worker. The answer is no. Sting is a guy who'll have a match as good as who he is working with. That's the main knock on Sting in general. 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? He's probably the only major guy since 1980 never to jump to Vince. That's pretty impressive. He definitely showed loyalty and commitment. 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? I don't really know what this means. I think Sting always looked good and he was good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Not condemning your efforts Jerry and I will respond to the list shortly but I really think a "tool" like this requires deeper "answers" to the questions. I'm going to post my Gordy List for Blackwell here as well so you can see what I mean. I may eventually do one for Patera and The High Flyers as well. 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? Regarded is the tricky word here. He was certainly never the best draw in the World or the country. I do not think it is a big stretch to say he was one of the best draws in the country in 83 and 84. You could argue that he was the best draw in his promotion every year from 80-85, though I tend to think that is excessive. 80, 81 and 82 we just lack enough evidence to say one way or the other though at minimum he was one of the top two or three heels and one of the two freshest stars to emerge from the AWA during the period (the other being Hogan). The evidence does strongly suggest that he was the biggest heel draw in the promotion in 83 and the biggest draw in the promotion as both a face and a heel in 84. He was also clearly the most consistent and strongest drawing singles wrestler in the AWA in 85. 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? Not an international draw at all, unless one wants to argue for Winnipeg where Blackwell did great business over the years fits under this category (technically it does, but it seems wrong to consider a regular "loop" town in this equation). National is arguable though I would lean toward "no." Yes he did big numbers in the outlying towns of the AWA (Vegas, Salt Lake City and even popping the dead San Francisco town more than anyone else from that era), while being a main event level player in St. Louis at the same time. He also got at least some national exposure through the magazines, PWUSA, and eventually ESPN. Still there isn't much to indicate that he was a draw of any magnitude in his WWWF or Mid-Atlantic stints and you can't be a national draw if half the country is off the table. He was a strong regional star though and the company he was based out of covered a ******** of geographic territory, with Blackwell doing well across the board (in addition to the Western towns mentioned this would include Chicago, Green Bay, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Denver, et.). 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? We don't have enough figures to be sure but it is arguable that he was the biggest draw in the AWA from at least some of 1980 as his run v. Crusher was booked over title matches for a while and the Andre matches at the end of the year combined with the battle royals were probably the biggest (figuratively and literally) matches of the year that weren't for the AWA title. In 81 he was consistently in mains or semi-mains again including an excellent number v. Verne in Chicago (we don't have a number for the rematch sadly), more stuff v. Crusher and Baron, and a run as Hogan's first real "around the loop" main event opponent. 82 is dominated by High Flyers v. Blackwell/Adnan which was really the go to match for the bulk of the year. At times it wasn't a home run, but it held steady all year, did very good numbers in some cases and the stuff Blackwell did around the feud did well also. We also lack numbers from the big buildings in 82 which is too bad but if you use Winnipeg and SLC as a litmus test the territory was fairly hot. We don't really have the numbers, but Blackwell was a semi-main event/main event guy in St. Louis for the entire year as well working with and against Patera, Andre, Dick The Bruiser and others. In 83 Blackwell starts the year paired with Adnan v. both the High Flyers and Mad Dog/Baron in matches that do great business. This builds to the Verne/Mad Dog match v. Adnan/Blackwell that was the actual main event at Super Sunday which may have been the most financially successful show in AWA history (the popular mythology now is that this was "all" Bock v. Hogan - if you watch the tv leading into this, it's clear that's not true). Patera is brought in as his partner and the rest of the year the Sheiks are red hot working against a wide variety of top level opponents, setting up a feud with the High Flyers, and drawing huge numbers around the loop. Hogan was no doubt a factor and probably the biggest draw in the company, but at this point if you look at the figures it feels like the Sheiks are a strong number two on the depth chart of a company that is making serious cash. In fact, it's not absurd to consider them 1a to Hogan's 1 much like Slaughter arguably was with Hogan the next year in the WWF. Meanwhile in St. Louis he gets a huge push with a string of four straight main events, including a Missouri title win, an NWA title match against Flair and then dropping the Missouri title to Race. The next show he comes back and wins a Battle Royal along with working in a huge six-man semi-main keeping him strong. He then goes into a lengthy program with Hogan before finishing the year in semi-mains defending the AWA tag belts with Patera. Despite Hogan leaving the AWA stays hot in 84 on the strength of Sheiks, selling out in places like Chicago, Milwaukee and Green Bay that were FAR from guaranteed sellouts, drawing huge crowds in Salt Lake City and Winnipeg, culminating in another huge St. Paul show headlined by High Flyers v. Sheiks blowoff that is another one of the biggest shows in AWA history and the biggest drawing show of the year for the AWA. This was all done right after Hogan left and while Jumbo was champ - it's pretty clear who the draws were. Blackwell stays hot working in main events everywhere until his face turn at the sellout Battle Royal show. He takes a couple months off to sell the injury and business dies immediately around the loop. I mean a massive die off. When he returns he is the top face and business immediately spikes and is back up to excellent numbers by the end of the year with Blackwell in feature roles, if not main events, on every show. In St. Louis he is primarily utilized in tag teams though he does get some semi-main events and main events including a farmed out Brody match that does poorly on top. Still they appear to have faith in him down there for the most part and he was farmed out to Central States for a string of main events that year as well. The first five months of 85 are a mixed bag. Blackwell misses some time and it is clear the shows are worse off when he's not there. When he is there the numbers are down in the bigger arenas but they are still "good" and there are more good numbers than bad overall, including some huge numbers by AWA standards in San Fran and a run v. Adnan in double cage main events that did quality business. Starrcage does 12k, a good but disappointing number. Verne's split crews and westward expansion, were combining with the loss of talent and Vince's hardcore expansion to hurt. When Blackwell and the Roadies take a huge chunk of time off after May business tanks and it never really recovers despite the SuperClash show doing reasonably well. Blackwell works on, or near the top of several St. Louis shows as well, feuding with Race, winning a second Missouri title and co-main eventing what I think was the last 10k plus match in St. Louis Wrestling Club history. 80-82 we have really incomplete figures but we have tv footage that tells us the territory was hot and that Blackwell was a heavily pushed star in the very upper tier. We have some strong numbers. In 83-84 we have plenty of figures. Lots of sellouts. Lots of "standing room only" mentions. Lots of 10k plus shows in a territory that didn't run very many 10k plus venues, including some record setting numbers. 85 is quite the mixed bag, but he was a part of some huge shows and like with 84 when he was gone the company really croaked at the gate. Saying he was a top draw from mid-80 to mid-85 seems accurate. 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? He was definitely never regarded as any of the above. Looking back now you could certainly make the case that he was the best in ring performer in the AWA in 83, 84 and perhaps even 85. Having said that even among those who would be willing to go back and watch the footage I don't think Blackwell would be regarded as the superior of Bockwinkel, Martel or Hennig. He would probably be viewed as a top five AWA guy from 80-85 cumulatively and perhaps every year individually as well. 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in his class? I think anyone who paid attention to the AWA would have regarded him as the best in his weight class perhaps from the moment he debuted all the way through til 86. For his body type he was an athlete of a different order than anything that was seen at the time. Guys like Bundy and even Andre had some agility but Blackwell was on a different level. His big offense looked impressive, brutal and flashy all at once. He was an extremely good athlete, sort of a precursor to Bam Bam and Vader but with a body type that was more awkward then theirs which in a way makes his work even more impressive. He was also an excellent bumper that built well to his big bumps throughout the course of a match (or even a feud) and sold brilliantly as both a face and a heel. Pre-AWA is tough to say because of the lack of footage, but from 80-86 he was almost certainly the best worker in his weight class cumulatively. In terms of individual years some may put Andre ahead of him for the early years but by 83 I doubt many people would make that argument and no one else is in the discussion. 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? Based on the footage we have 80-85 are the years that we can be certain of. One could maybe quibble with the inclusion of 85 on account of Blackwell missing a fair amount of time and I'm not sure how much of his return later in the year is available. On the other hand some of the best matches and performances of his career were in the first part of 85. 80-84 strike me as pretty obvious and inarguable with a multitude of quality matches against a wide variety of opponents. 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? It is hard to peg when his prime really begins because of footage issues. The 78 match with Blackjack Mulligan is quite good and gives us a hint that Blackwell was already a very strong worker before he got to the AWA. I've had multiple people in the last week tell me they saw Blackwell in Mid-Atlantic in the mid-70's and he was a good worker there as well. Post-85 Blackwell still had some really good matches against a variety of opponents. He relied more on schtick and less on athleticism but was still good by any measure even against mediocre opponents. 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? This depends a lot on what one means by "excellent." If the standard is "MOTYC's" the answer is no. If the standard is matches that could be called great and part of the canon for the 80's and/or the promotion he worked for then I would say Blackwell has a solid body of "excellence," though not a "large body." He is hurt a bit by the fact that many AWA matches from early in his run were JIP and most of his pre-AWA work is unavailable/unseen on tape. He's not Bockwinkel and never was going to be but his best performances were excellent and he was almost always the best guy in the match he was in. The 83 Civic Center match teaming with Adnan v. Baron/Mad Dog is a serious contender for the best taped match in the history of the AWA. His performance in the Cage v. The High Flyers in 84 was incredible. He was also great in the Starrcage main event in 85 and had a hell of a singles match with Masked Superstar in 85 as well. That's scratching the surface really as Blackwell had a variety of quality matches with opponents running the gamut from Col. Debeers to Lawler (in Memphis) to Reed (in St. Louis) to Hansen to Brody to Verne and all points in between. It was more a case of consistent quality than dozens of blow-a-way great matches, but his best stuff is among the best stuff in the history of the promotion. 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? Though some might try and argue against it, I think Blackwell is one of a very small number of wrestlers from the 80's who anchored a promotion without holding the promotions top singles title (or secondary title for that matter) at any point. Looking back at the early 80's you could make the case there wasn't any one true anchor but a grouping of guys that were expected to do well in the top slots around the loop, with Blackwell among them. Still I would say that Bock and then Hogan were the closest things to true anchors until Hogan's departure in late 83. At that point Blackwell effectively became the anchor of the company and it could be argued he remained the anchor until business tanked when he was gone for the Summer of 85. At any rate he dominated the AWA in 84. Drew huge money as one half of the tag team champions with Patera in the front end of the year as a heel. Turned face in a sellout show at the Civic Center and took time off to sell an injury at which point business tanked. He comes back as the top face in the company and business immediately goes up and shoots through the roof with him on top of huge shows all over by years end. I would call being part of the top drawing heel act and the top drawing face act in the same year "anchoring a promotion" without hesitation. 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? Without question. In fact Blackwell was fairly unique in the sense that he was effective pushed at the top against a huge variety of opponents including his singles programs v. Mad Dog, Crusher, Verne, Andre, Hogan, Brody, Adnan, Race, Patera and Superstar as well as his tag programs v. The High Flyers, Mad Dog and friends, Dino and Martel and others. He consistently got over, drew money and got huge reactions regardless of opponent. 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? Before his prime he had varying degrees of success as a mid-carder in Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern and the WWWF. He did headline some in the WWWF during both of his stints there though those were primarily on the smaller spot shows (he had one Spectrum main event v. Backlund and some smaller headline matches v. Andre around the loop). He was a somewhat consistent semi-main event guy there and had programs with Ivan Putski, Monsoon, Strongbrow, Bobo Brazil among others. In Mid-Atlantic he had a moderate push teaming with Brute Bernard at one point and he did hold the SECW tag belts twice for the Fullers though neither reign meant much. He appears to have been a solid mid-card/upper mid-card act in Mid-Atlantic for parts of 77-78 as well. Post-prime his health made him incapable of working anything resembling a full load. He did some stints in Central States working all over the card and did have some success in the AWA in 86 where he was still one of the most over acts on the roster, headlining two of the four biggest drawing shows of the year (and the other two were Wrestlerock which was a loaded show and a Salt Lake City show with three title matches including a Ric Flair NWA title match effectively making it a "supercard" of sorts) and being Hansen's best drawing challenger. He was a utility player from that point forward but still got good reactions on the shows. 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? Absolutely. In fact Blackwell had a strong impact on the entire run from 80-84, a very strong over all period for the company. It is arguable - if not likely - that he was the most important heel in the promotion for that entire stretch surpassing even Bockwinkel who was champion for much of that period. He also had great value after his face turn and was a main even level player in St. Louis during a solid run for that town. 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? Yes. Many of the details have already been run down above, but it is worth repeating the fact that Blackwell was involved in several feuds with a variety of wrestlers that did well at the box office. Perhaps more importantly this was almost immediate upon his arrival in the AWA as even his series with Dino Bravo was well placed on the cards and after that he was a consistent top level guy. His on again/off again feuds with Mad Dog and Crusher were solid "go to's" around the loop for almost his entire run. He was clearly the right opponent for both Andre and Hogan when they came in and was consistently paired with them at key points to the point where the term "rivalry" doesn't seem out of place. The High Flyers feud was a huge money maker that the company went to twice with Blackwell teaming with both Adnan and Patera producing memorable matches. His face turn and run against Adnan/Brody was very memorable and something the crowd was clearly ready (and excited) for. The biggest notch in his belt would be the value he had in getting over the need for Mad Dog and Verne to unite for the Super Sunday main event against Blackwell and Adnan - a show that may have been the most financially successful in the history of the promotion. I'm not privy to the details of his run in St. Louis, but he appears to have had lengthy programs v. Hogan, Patera and Race there that would indicate some success with the live crowds in the area. 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? No question about it. Blackwell was very good on the mic, perhaps one of the more underrated guys from his era. He was excellent at getting across key points of his character or storyline and putting over his opponent at the same time which is something that other talented mic workers weren't always so great at. His promos/skits putting over his girth/power are some of the most entertaining in the history of the AWA. He was also quite good at getting over a storyline during the course of a match and was involved in some key angles. A couple of high points would be the Civic Center tag with Adnan v. Baron/Mad Dog that led to a riot when Blackwell and Adnan attacked Verne post-match (kick starting an angle that would lead to the aforementioned arguable peak show in AWA history) and the great face turn angle in the 84 Battle Royal also in St. Paul. Both angles would rate among the most intense and dramatic in company history and while the wait on the Blackwell return while he sold the injury sustained in the Battle Royal was brutal for business, both were ultimately financially successful. 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? Definitely. In particular he was excellent at getting over his girth as a weapon but without coming across as a blubbering clown. His showmanship in the ring was really impressive as he was very good at milking the big bumps and big spots. He was very good at staying dangerous and vulnerable which is a fine line for big men. He was also excellent during the period he was paired with Adnan as the traitor to his country who sold out for money. His babyface turn was extremely effective and got over massive largely as a result of Blackwell's personality and his ability to sell a beating. Blackwell played multiple roles and played all of them quite well. 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? Blackwell held very few titles over the course of his career. By far the most important was his AWA tag title run with Ken Patera which was extremely important to the promotion, carrying it at the box office in the wake of the company losing their biggest singles star. He was a two time co-holder of the Southeastern Championship Wrestling tag belts though it seems as though the reigns meant little. He was also a two time winner of the Missouri Title in St. Louis. Neither of his reigns appear to have meant all that much, but it is worth noting that that title was reserved almost exclusively for top level stars (http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/mo/mo-h.html). 17. Did he win many honors and awards? No, though it could easily be argued that this was as a result of when and where he worked. 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? Like most of the AWA guys from the period he got some local mainstream exposure, though probably not to the degree of a guy like Verne or Hogan. On a national level he did not. I don't know how well covered he was by PWI or their affiliated mags, but from what I know of PWI, the AWA wasn't really their bread and butter. 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? Absolutely. Blackwell is one of the more unheralded tag workers of all time. His tag team with Adnan (who was by no measure a good worker) was quite good at building heat, working an angle, and taking big paybacks from the babyfaces. The Patera version of the Sheiks was just as good at this with more polished heat sections. Blackwell carried the load with both of those teams, usually with his impressive offensive spots and his dynamic bumping and selling which he seemed to really excel at in a tag environment. Even his makeshift units with guys like John Studd and King Kong Bundy produced quality matches regardless of opponent largely on the strength of Blackwell's efforts. Blackwell has multiple memorable and great tag matches to his credit, including some of the top matches in the history of the AWA. It also should be reiterated that Blackwell's teams were massive draws at the box office - something that cannot be said of many other quality teams from that era. 20. Was he innovative? He was certainly one of the first really athletic big men and to my recollection is the only non-luchador big man who carried so much weight in such a small frame while still being able to hit visually impressive spots/bumps. Not sure "innovative" is the right word for that though, even if he was sort of a "first" in that regard. 21. Was he influential? I would say "no." It may be notable that he was such a big bumping and athletic big man. Andre could do that sort of stuff before him but he packaged it differently. When you see someone like Vader, Bam Bam or even Yoko hitting big athletic spots or taking big bumps it certainly looks more Jerry Blackwell than it does Andre. Having said that I'm not sure any of them would cite Jerry as their influence. 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? Definitely yes. For much of his AWA run he was paired off against older and/or limited wrestlers and he made it work every time. Blackwell had the unique ability to make questionable looking offense look brutal or effective with his bumping and selling (while maintaining his credibility as a bruiser) which was of huge value when paired off against wrestlers like Crusher or Baron Von Raschke. It is easy to underestimate how hated Adnan was, but it is also clear the immense value Blackwell brought as a tag team partner and member of his stable. It is also worth noting that Ken Patera had his last run of significance teaming with Blackwell in an extremely effective, money drawing and solid in ring team. Even late in his career he was unusually good carrying weak wrestlers to watchable/quality matches given his increasingly obvious physical limitations and health problems. 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? I know of nothing to indicate that Blackwell was unprofessional. He did seem to miss a fair number of shows over the years, but that was likely health related and it is notable that his push was never effected in any way. Despite never getting a singles title during his AWA run he was consistently pushed at the top of the cards and seemed to understand that he had more value in that respect than he would as a major title holder. Perhaps he could be criticized for allowing his health to slip so quickly and at such a relatively young age, but his gimmick was predicated on being a big man. 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? I think it is almost indisputable that Blackwell is underrated in almost every respect and I think the evidence reflects that. I also think the evidence suggests that he was better than he may have appeared. Because of his health and weight he had a relatively short career by the standards of the time. Because of the fact that he never held a singles title, and was not an old guard AWA figure his contributions are easier to dismiss or even forget for those who were not fans of the AWA. Finally the AWA of Blackwell's era is a promotion/territory that is not as heavily explored as others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Alright let me have a go at this in the next hour. Also, I wanted to take this up with Dylan and jdw earlier but I'm skeptical as to the extent to which WCW was TRULY a "national" promotion in, say, 1992. They might have positioned themselves like a national company, they might have been spending as if they were, but really were they? WCW always seemed to stay in its hotbed a lot more than WWF until at least the Nitro era. Which towns up North did WCW regularly run in the early 90s? Did they even run places like Houston as much as WWF did? WCW was a national promotion in the early 90's. They had national TV on a strong basic cable channel I did a quick run through of match results, not perfect but it will give you an idea of their territory: They had a regular loop of the south east (GA, FLA, ALA, TN, SC, NC), mid-south (MS, LA, OK), mid-west (KS, MO, IN, OH, IL, MI, MN, WI) and mid-atlantic (DC, VA, WV, PA, MD) regions. That's almost half the states in the country that they were running on more or less a monthly basis (some states more than others, but they were hitting all these regions on a regular basis). They weren't running often or drawing well north of PA/MD or out West. 4 times at the Meadowlands in 91, once in 92 and once at the Worcester Centrum. A show at the Paramount Theater in NYC in 93 (2,900 paid) and it doesn't look like anything in 94 or 95. MA and really anything north of NY/NJ/LI in WWE territory they were never really able to break into (they did run a Nitro from the Garden). California they tried to get into in 90/91 then gave up on until they had Hogan and did a few shows late in 94, then abandoned it again in 95, 2 shows in 96, 4 in 97, 5 in 98. Places like Nevada, Utah, Colorado didn't get shows and/or draw until the Nitro era. They really struggled to break into Texas. 14 shows in '91 mostly in smaller cities like Corpus Christie, Amarillo and Lubbock. One in San Antonio that drew 650, One in Houston that drew 1,100, and one in Dallas that drew 3,300. In 92 they're down to 7 shows, 2 each in Houston and Dallas. 93 has two shows in Houston (the Fall Brawl PPV being one), and shows at the Alamodome and Texas Stadium canceled due to low ticket sales. In 94-96 they ran 4 shows each year and abandoned Dallas and Houston. 97 one show in Houston. In 98 they finally started drawing in the state with 2 Nitro tapings at the Alamo Dome and a crowd of 32,000 for a Nitro at the Astrodome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted May 28, 2012 Report Share Posted May 28, 2012 Rather than quote break all of this I'm going to put my comments in bold 1. Was he ever regarded as the best draw in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best draw in his country or his promotion? No for world or country, but for his promotion, definitely. When was he considered the best draw in his company? He was certainly pushed as the top face in the company for a couple of years, but the point of this question is to get to the meat of his value - in Sting's case that meat doesn't really exist, at least not on the surface. Someone else argued that shows with Sting featured prominently did better buyrates. That's the sort of thing I would want to see here to point to proof that he was actually someone who's position on the shows was getting some results. 2. Was he an international draw, national draw and/or regional draw? Yes to all? I knew who Sting was when I was 12, being from the UK. Although I don't know how much stock you can put into that, since I wasn't exactly your average fan. Being known is not the same thing as being a draw. This is a common misconception that we all fall into from time to time and it works both ways. The High Flyers are less well known team than The Rockers, but The High Flyers were unquestionably bigger draws. Having a degree of fame and name recognition is not irrelevant to an HoF discussion, but I don't think it's as important as drawing and the two things should not be confused. 3. How many years did he have as a top draw? Shall we say 5-6? Sting had no years as a top draw. Actually let me amend that. If you count Crow Sting - and you arguably should - he may have had one year. I really can't conceive of any argument that would get his total up to five or six even if we were being REALLY generous. 4. Was he ever regarded as the best worker in the world? Was he ever regarded as the best worker in his country or in his promotion? Probably not, but he did have his fair share of great matches given the right opponent Definitely not, though I agree with your second point. 5. Was he ever the best worker in his class (sex or weight)? Was he ever one of the top workers in hisclass? Ditto Sting is tough because it depends on how you define "class." He was sort of branded as a musclebound face, but his frame was different than someone like Hogan's. He wasn't really a Flair type, nor was he really a Luger type. I would feel more comfortable classing him with Luger than with Flair though that may be an error of my perception. Anyhow to the extent that he is in that sort of "musclebound" babyface class I actually think you may be underselling him a hair here. He was a very good worker by the standards of guys in that class, or at least he was for a few years. It's also worth noting that his matches with Vader are among the best "musclebound but still underdog face v. monster" matches in wrestling history. 6. How many years did he have as a top worker? Shall we say 3-4? As a top worker within that particular (and admittedly arbitrary) class that seems right. As a top worker in his promotion it's tougher because WCW had so many strong talents during that run that even in a year like 92 where Sting had some real quality performances I'm not sure he was a top ten guy in the company. If one were to compile a list of the best WCW workers from the 90's I don't know that Sting even makes a top twenty. If you start from the Clash match with Flair and cut off at Hogan? I don't know. I can't see him ahead of Vader, Windham, Pillman, Eaton, Arn, Steamboat, Dustin Rhodes or Flair just off the top of my head. If you break down by individual year throughout his run I'm not sure he's ever in a top five. My point is that even within his own company "top worker" is not something you necessarily think of when you think of Sting. If you span out behind that his case only gets weaker. If you stick to his "class" 3/4 years feels right. 7. Was he a good worker before his prime? Was he a good worker after his prime? Arguably yes? Depends on when you define his prime. In Sting's case I would argue his "prime" kick starts with the Flair Clash match and ends with the last of the Vader series in 94. I think it's tough to say he was a good wrestler before his prime. After his prime is a mixed bag with more positives than some would like to admit and more negatives than others would like to admit. 8. Did he have a large body of excellent matches? Did he have a excellent matches against a variety of opponents? Yes? Flair, Luger, Vader, Foley, Muta, Rude, DDP ... and yes I'm acting as if TNA never existed. I think here is a case where something like the yearbooks/80's sets can have some value as to me this question is really a roundabout way of asking "how many matches of this guy would you feel are deserving of being part of a wrestling canon?" I don't think you can just pull matches from the yearbooks because those sets have a slightly different goal (i.e. they aren't all about quality of work), but they do have value as reference points. Anyhow I think in terms of "excellent"/canon matches Sting has a respectable number but not a huge number particularly when you stop and think about how long he was around. If one were doing a WCW Set the way we are doing sets for other promotions how many matches do we think Sting gets into a 150? Offhand I can think of about eight singles matches I would fight for, with perhaps a few tags sprinkling throughout. 9. Did he ever anchor his promotion(s)? Yes We agree 10. Was he effective when pushed at the top of cards? Well define "effective" ... was he effective at popping the crowd and being the most over guy in the company? Yes. Was he effective as a draw? More debatable / no. I don't understand why it is hard to define effective. Seems to me that the question is pretty clearly "as an anchor/top of the card act did this guy draw money/help business/sustain business." 11. Was he valuable to his promotion before his prime? Was he still valuable to his promotion after his prime? Are we saying 88-89 is before his prime? The answer is yes. If we're saying that TNA is after his prime, well someone else can answer that. Before his prime I would say no but I see the Flair match as beginning of his prime. If you back his prime up to the point where he becomes anchor the answer changes to "yes." After his prime? Well Crow Sting is really after his prime and that certainly had value. Other than that? I don't know. He really seems lost/wasted for much of the last portion of his WCW years and while he had some positive impact initially for TNA it has been very limited over all. 12. Did he have an impact on a number of strong promotional runs? Basically a one company guy. But he had arguably 4 distinct "strong runs" - 88-9, 91-3, 98, and TNA. Of which 91-3 is the only time he was "the ace". 91-3 was not a "strong run" by any sane metric. In fact it was quite the opposite of a "strong run" and this is coming from someone who loves much of the wrestling in the company from that period, attended dozens of live cards during the era, et. Having said that I think in a sense this is Sting's biggest plus as he is a guy people think of when they think of the post-Turner buyout TBS/TNT television World. I think for most long time fans he is the first guy they think of after Flair and I think that's why a lot of folks have trouble grasping just how poor his record really was as a drawing ace. He definitely had an impact for the totality of this stretch, in periods both strong and poor. 13. Was he involved in a number of memorable rivalries, feuds or storylines? Yes, yes, yes to the max Okay so tell us what they are. The Vader feud is an all time great in ring feud that didn't really make money. I liked the Rude angle a lot - it didn't make money. The Muta stuff was fun as a kid but was extremely secondary in a loaded year. The Flair stuff is memorable, but really is weak next to stuff like Flair v. Luger. Crow Sting v. The NWO obviously had huge value and was memorable. Over all though I actually think it's shocking that a guy who was around as long as Sting in such a well placed spot has so few memorable rivalries, feuds and storylines. 14. Was he effective working on the mic, working storylines or working angles? Yes, yes, yes to the max Your answer tells us less than nothing. What are some examples of this. I would point to Crow Sting. Beyond that there are some things he did that I thought worked well, but didn't really lead to any solid business returns. 15. Did he play his role(s) effectively during his career? To the max Honestly this isn't even really argument by assertion. I'm not sure what it is, but I really had hoped for someone to try and use this tool to really hash out Sting's strengths and positives and I think you could do better than this. 16. What titles and tournaments did he win? What was the importance of the reigns? Well who can forget the most prestigious tournament of all time? The Iron Man tournament at Starrcade '89? And what about that coveted BATTLE BOWL RING from 1991? What about the King of Cable tournament from 92? Or the Jim Crocket Sr. Memorial Cup? If tournament wins are important, Sting has a unique trophy cabinet. Anyway, 7-time World Champ, 11 if you count TNA. Important runs with the US and TV titles that elevated those belts. I don't see how his title reigns really elevated the belts in question. I'd be interested to see what you and others think his most substantially title reign was. 17. Did he win many honors and awards? Well, look, he was massively over with PWI: PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year (1991, 1992, 1994, 1997) PWI Wrestler of the Year (1990) PWI ranked him #1 of the top 500 singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 1992 PWI ranked him #15 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the "PWI Years" in 2003 And to a lesser extend with WON: Best Babyface (1992) 5 Star Match (1991) with Brian Pillman, Rick Steiner, and Scott Steiner vs. Ric Flair, Larry Zbyszko, Barry Windham, and Sid Vicious (February 24, WarGames match, WrestleWar) 5 Star Match (1992) with Nikita Koloff, Ricky Steamboat, Barry Windham, & Dustin Rhodes vs. Arn Anderson, Rick Rude, Steve Austin, Bobby Eaton, & Larry Zbyszko (May 17, WarGames match, WrestleWar) Match of the Year (1988) vs. Ric Flair at Clash of the Champions I Most Charismatic (1988, 1992) Most Improved (1988) And winning best babyface in 1992 is no mean feat considering all the things that were happening around the world that year. I think the WON awards reflect the fact that WON voters were rightfully appreciative of the quality wrestling WCW put on during that era. Sting played a role in that and deserves some credit, though I'm not sure how much. PWI is always tougher for obvious reasons but I think it does speak to the relative "fame" of Sting if nothing else. 18. Did he get mainstream exposure due to his wrestling fame? Did he get a heavily featured by the wrestling media? You missed this one. I would say very little mainstream exposure relative to other top stars, though he was well covered by wrestling media. 19. Was he a top tag team wrestler? Yes. His stuff with Luger, outside of that Steiners match, is underappreciated in general. He had a few good runs with the tag titles. I think it's a real stretch to say he was a top tag team wrestler and I liked the Luger team. The Bladerunners were really bad, but even excluding that how would Sting compare to someone like Arn, Eaton or Windham who are guys that I think we all agree qualify as "top tag team wrestlers." Even taking it a step down from that do people really view Sting as a guy who's tag performances stood out? 20. Was he innovative? I'd argue he was. The Stinger splash was quite distinctive. Seriously? I like Sting, but citing the Stinger splash as innovative in the context of an HoF discussion seems like the ultimate in "I want to make SOME case for this guy!" 21. Was he influential? I think you can see the influence of Sting in guys like Edge, Christian and Jericho. I have no clue what you are referring to here. I have no doubt that a lot of guys who are wrestlers now enjoyed Sting as a kid but I don't see anyway in which Sting was an influential wrestler and see no connection at all between Christian and Sting. 22. Did he make the people and workers around him better? This is probably Sting's main weakness as a worker. The answer is no. Sting is a guy who'll have a match as good as who he is working with. That's the main knock on Sting in general. I'm not sure that's true. I mean he wasn't going to carry anyone, but he was not a guy who had a rep of burying people or undermining them either. I can't say he made people better, but I don't think this is a negative for him either. 23. Did he do what was best for the promotion? Did he show a commitment to wrestling? He's probably the only major guy since 1980 never to jump to Vince. That's pretty impressive. He definitely showed loyalty and commitment. Sting was definitely a company man. 24. Is there any reason to believe that he was better or worse than he appeared? I don't really know what this means. I think Sting always looked good and he was good. It means is there any reason to think his resume is padded or conversely that it doesn't tell the full story of his worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 29, 2012 Report Share Posted May 29, 2012 Whoa now. Hold on. A few things. It's not entirely fair to say " this is the first time I've ever heard you praise anyone that wasn't in the WWF in the 80s or 90s". Up until very recently I had a website on which I'd reviewed every WCW PPV in the early 90s until Bash at the Beach 96. If you go over to DVDR I've left comments on pretty much all 150 matches on the All Japan set. And plenty of comments in the MidSouth thread -- I missed the boat on being part of the project, but I said plenty of things about the first 5 or 6 discs that I watched before All Japan took over. Sure, without doubt I'm someone who thinks the WWF did a hell of a lot of things right in the 80s from a booking perspective. And, yes, I think crowd reaction is as important as workrate, which I understand isn't a popular view. But it's not entirely fair to say that I only praise 80s WWF. I have never seen you praise someone at this board who did not work in the WWF. I'm glad that you have watched other stuff, but I haven't seen you mention, say, Jumbo Tsuruta, here. I see more about Irwin R. Schyster and Sean Mooney. I have seen you dismiss other promotions. To a point where you are trying to argue that WCW, a promotion that aired on national television for its entire existence, was not a national promotion in its early days. WCW, a company that did a European tour in 1993. WCW, a company that did cross promotional shows with New Japan, the largest wrestling promotion in the world at the time, in 1991 and 1992. WCW, a company backed by a huge media conglomerate with a pretty far reach. Even Jim Crockett Promotions was a national promotion. Sure, they were primarily focused in the Southeast, but they ran shows in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston and other markets. In their first full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Chicago * Nashville * Baltimore * Philadelphia * Atlanta All major markets. In their second full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Greensboro * Washington DC * Baltimore * Philadelphia * St. Louis All major markets. In their third full year of existence, WCW ran pay-per-views in: * Denver * St. Petersburg, FL * Baltimore * Chattanooga, TN * Norfolk, VA Ok, not major markets there, but the point stands. Second, the only thing I was saying is that "based on work" is not really a metric like being a draw. There are no figures for "work" or "rep". But even where metrics exist, you haven't really cited them. And of course there are metrics. Were the matches good or bad? So if THAT is part of the consideration, there's no reason why consistent crowd reaction and overness can't be too. Because those things are reflective of being "effective" and/or anchoring a promotion. They are inherent in other categories that are already mentioned. Do you really think someone who consistently had heatless matches would be considered for the WON based on work? I mean, we've been down this road so many times, but there IS an argument to say that a guy who is not over is not working effectively. I don't know how far to take that argument because it ends up saying JYD wiggling his butt is "more effective" than a sweet suplex by Barry Windham ... But it is still part of wrestling. And it, the crowd, simply can't be ignored. The argument that says "we've got to ignore crowd reaction as a measure of a guy's success because Ice Train and Virgil once got big pops" surely ignores something about a guy like Sting who was consistently over for his entire career. Sting was over his entire career. Because of WCW's heavy focus on television, he seemed like a bigger star than he really was. Why was Sting still considered such a massive asset in 1998 and given "Sting money" if he was such a failure? The promoters obviously saw value in him, and they couldn't ignore the crowd. That's got to be worth something. Stevie Ray and Scott Norton had larger contracts than Ric Flair in 1998. It's not something I'd really cite. 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.