Define Mid-Carder

[jdw]

[jdw]

Jerry: I know it seems like we're being hard on your here, and we are. But your points don't seem to be advancing what was Dylan's original question. Hence Loss and/or I banging our heads against the wall.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

Midcarders with a storyline, midcarders without a storyline ... these are things just that happen to be the case, not really things that require distinguishing, right?

They really do.

 

A midcarder with a storyline is getting a stronger push than one without. I'm sure at least a modicum of thought is put into who does and does not get storylines at any given time, especially in WWF/E.

 

A lower midcarder is not a pointless sub-category, but a well-defined role on any roster, distinct from "midcarder" and one pretty much epitomised by Brad Armstrong for most of his WCW run.

 

So on this occassion, jdw and Loss, I think you are in the wrong to be doing whatever you are doing in this thread.

[WingedEagle]

Okay. You win. There are lower midcarders. As epitomized by Brad Armstrong.

[Loss]

If it's so easy to define, why are people having such a hard time defining it? Armstrong headlined with Flair around the horn once, for what it's worth.

[jdw]

He headlined in the Bama territory before the wrestling world changed.

 

It's a bit like calling Buddy Rose a midcarder. He headlined MSG once, and the Spectrum a couple of times... but was largely in mid-carder in the WWF. Upper card guy in the AWA with the tag titles feuding with the Rockers. But overall, an uneventful career in the Big Leagues (which it would be kind of funny to call the AWA in 1986 a big league).

 

But to focus just on those would be to ignore the fact that he was a main eventer in Portland for a long time.

 

Hence the Box references earlier: it doesn't add much to a discussion to try to wrap wrestlers up into a neat little box. Careers don't tend to work out that way.

 

John

[JerryvonKramer]

I still don't really understand why Loss made his post. Are you saying that I've in some way made up the category of "lower midcarder"?

 

jdw's point is so banal it barely warrants making: guys receive different pushes at different times in their career, they may work anywhere on the card during their career. I don't think anyone is stupid enough for that patronising point even to be made.

 

I also think the distinction between a guy in the midcard with a storyline as opposed to one in the midcard without one (think, say, post-comeback Jimmy Snuka circa 89) is at least worth making for the purposes of being clear about types of midcarder.

 

I don't know why anyone would have their knickers in a twist in this thread. I'm taking my leave of it.

[Loss]

I don't think you've made up the category. I just think it's drilling down to a level that is true, but not really relevant.

[Mad Dog]

Brad Armstrong was a main eventer in SMW while he was there. He also had that underdog run with the North American Heavyweight Championship while he was in Mid-South Wrestling. He and Tim Horner also had a considerable reign with the UWF Tag Team Championship.

[Mad Dog]

Even someone like Jim Powers had a run for a few years.

 

It seems like if you're around for long enough, circumstances are going to lead to you getting some sort of chance at moving up from your usual spot on the card.

 

I mean shit, WCW gave Hardwork Bobby Walker some minor pushes over the years.

[artDDP]

I think it was Wade Keller who once defined a mid-carder as someone who is either working their way up the card with a possibility of being in the main event or someone who once was who is working their way down the card.

 

To me the term applies to anyone who isn't a regular focus of the promotion. Scott Hall as Razor Ramon, for example.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Okay. You win. There are lower midcarders. As epitomized by Brad Armstrong.

Here's lower mid carder Brad Armstrong defending The North American Title against technical wrestling great Ted DiBiase.

 

 

And a rematch that just kicks fucking ass.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBmsYhWHISI

[Matt D]

Perhaps more useful than looking at a wrestler over his career is to look at a promotion at a specific point of time and classify the wrestlers in it at that moment?

 

I'm actually not entirely sure what Dylan thought we needed with the original post

[ohtani's jacket]

From now on, I'm going to refer to Tito Santana as a curtain jerkin', headlin' mid-carder and Brad Armstrong as an Alabama playa.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I'm actually not entirely sure what Dylan though we needed with the original post

Podcast material, but I'm gonna steal the "Maybe with some guys it's just how they "feel" in terms of presentation. That's another aspect that can be explored in the thread I suppose, though I don't know where to go with that."

gimmick for mine.

 

 

"That is another aspect that can be explored in the thread I suppose, though I do not know where to go with that."

[jdw]

I'm actually not entirely sure what Dylan thought we needed with the original post

The term was tossed at Patera on WC. Dylan appears to have been interested if there was any definition of what a mid carder is.

 

The thread tends to illustrated why it's problematic.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I'm actually not entirely sure what Dylan thought we needed with the original post

The term was tossed at Patera on WC. Dylan appears to have been interested if there was any definition of what a mid carder is.

 

The thread tends to illustrated why it's problematic.

 

John

 

John's basically got it.

 

I would add that the term in general is one that I have always seen used rather haphazardly to describe a huge swath of people that don't appear to me to be all that similar. I realize that there will always be issues with categorization, but I was curious about whether or not this is a term that has anything close to a shared meaning.

 

In particular I thought the Patera thing was puzzling because it was a response from Matt Farmer after he went through all of the research/data dumps I have posted at Classics. There are legitimate criticisms of that research and Patera as an HoF candidate, but I don't think "he was a mid-carder" is a serious conclusion that can be drawn from anything I have posted.

[Matt D]

Aha. I missed the classics background so I was left scratching my head.

 

I can see Patera being "remembered" as a mid-carder.

[Timbo Slice]

John Cena was not a "Main Eventer" until he rose up the card and became one, where he has stayed on top for the majority of his career. So when people think about John Cena, he tends to get classified as a "main eventer."

 

Whereas somebody like a Brad Armstrong or a Tito Santana or what have you spent the majority of his time working around the middle of the card in his career, and is therefore thought of as a "mid carder." There were times where he was a main eventer and there were times where he curtain jerked, but mainly, you would see him as someone who was in or around the "mid card" level.

 

The arguments against someone having a short run or maybe a scant shot at a main event slot every now and then does not classify someone as a main eventer. Ken Patera, as Dylan pointed out, spent very little time in the entirety of his career in the middle of the card, working more semi-final and main event matches than anything else. But he is remembered fondly as a mid-carder due to that being his most "high-profile" time in his career.

 

That's just simple logic. That doesn't take into account any subset of how workers are classified. If you REALLY wanted to break it down into the different subsets as people are so quick to do, then you need a breakdown of things like card placement, number of matches, etc. I actually tried to do this with Dylan one time and we both came to the conclusion that such an amount of research would be something that would not only be time consuming, but would be incredibly hard to ascertain due to the fluid nature of how workers are defined.

 

I don't necessarily think it's as problematic as John and the like believe, because the only thing needed is a cohesive understanding of roles and for people to stick with it. The problem instead is people trying to pinpoint the specifics to a point where it muddles the waters. Some things just need to be simple.