Matt D Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Are there Brody matches on Wrestling Gold that Dave does commentary on? it's been a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Dave calls out specific matches: Best Brody match I saw live was Brody & Hansen vs. Funks from Nagoya, Japan. Brody & Snuka vs. Funks for years was considered top five or top ten matches in All Japan history. I wasn't at Brody vs. Kimala in Fort Worth, but was told it was the most heated match they had there even more then Freebirds vs. Von Erichs or Flair matches. I saw it on TV, heat was off the charts like Rougeaus vs. Garvins. The Fort Worth match may not look good today, it was only a few minutes, ended with no finish, nothing but punches, kicks and chops. I wasn't at the match but my friend Robert Hernandez called me that night and said everyone was leaving the building saying it was the greatest match they'd ever seen. And I'll bet money if I saw it today it wouldn't look good. Which makes an important point. Everything is time-relative and place-relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Which again, would be a massive issue if we were primarily comparing stuff from today against it instead of stuff from the same era, a ton of which (even of the same style of matches) holds up amazingly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Someone over on F4W asked about Brody and I pointed them to this thread. Meltzer weighed in just now, The disconnect between fans who have no perspective of the era and wrestling people who romanticize has never been more evident than with Brody. It's hilarious. On one side, every 6-foot-4 to 6-foot-9 guy being taught to wrestle is told to view Brody tapes because he is the prototype for how a big guy should work. Then you have fans who think they understand working by x's and o's who think he sucks because he doesn't sell the way they like or his matches were boring even though the crowd usually was going crazy for them. I ask people who worked with him on top whether he could work or not. Not all said he was great. Some thought too stiff at points, a valid argument, some had qualms like Bockwinkel because they didn't get along in the ring (although even Bockwinkel told me in every conversation that he rated Brody with Ray Stevens as far as pure talent, but had issues with him in business and also hated working with him in Japan because you had to fight for everything). Funks & Flair rated him right near the top. Terry Funk laughs outrageously as the modern viewpoint of people who say he's a lousy worker, or anything less than spectacular. To me, he's the perfect example of when people bring up a match from 30 years ago and say would you change your star rating for it today, and I think that question alone tells me they have zero understanding of the pro wrestling business. In 2000, they asked virtually every Japanese wrestler in a best of the century poll, who the greatest foreign wrestler was. Brody had more votes than anyone else. Today people will say that just proves how dumb wrestlers are about working. Me, I just find it all funny. So is his entire point really that Bruiser Brody is great because people say he's great? I can call mustard ketchup. I can get a full neighborhood of people to do it too, maybe even people that have tried every ketchup around and speak highly of it. In the end, my french fries will still taste funky. What other people say is not proof of anything except what other people say. Reputation means far less than specifics. Why not a statement followed by a breakdown of why he was great? If we don't get it, show us the light. Explain it instead of condescendingly writing us off as having zero understanding of wrestling. Dave thought Hulk Hogan was a poor worker and he says we have zero understanding of the pro wrestling business. Dave really needs to relinquish some of his control over the Wrestling Opinion Industrial Complex. He doesn't own it, yet he seems to think he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 So is Brody someone whose work holds up so well that big guys still study his tapes to learn how to work? Or is he someone whose work doesn't really hold up but it doesn't matter because wrestling is all about time and place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Dave calls out specific matches: Best Brody match I saw live was Brody & Hansen vs. Funks from Nagoya, Japan. Brody & Snuka vs. Funks for years was considered top five or top ten matches in All Japan history. I wasn't at Brody vs. Kimala in Fort Worth, but was told it was the most heated match they had there even more then Freebirds vs. Von Erichs or Flair matches. I saw it on TV, heat was off the charts like Rougeaus vs. Garvins. The Fort Worth match may not look good today, it was only a few minutes, ended with no finish, nothing but punches, kicks and chops. I wasn't at the match but my friend Robert Hernandez called me that night and said everyone was leaving the building saying it was the greatest match they'd ever seen. And I'll bet money if I saw it today it wouldn't look good. Which makes an important point. Everything is time-relative and place-relative. Is the match with Snuka the one that finished 20th overall in All Japan voting? I had it at #25. https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharringt...of1980salljapan 20. Bruiser Brody & Jimmy Snuka vs. Dory and Terry Funk (12/13/81) o Average Vote: 41 o Ranked in the top ten on 19% of the ballots; ranked in the top twenty on 40% of ballots Nothing to sniff at. Don't think the community is as totally clueless as he's making out, everyone will give good stuff its due. But what about the dozens of totally shitty Brody matches we've all seen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 I think his point is that it doesn't matter if we like them now or not, because they were liked at the time, and we're incapable of watching something with 1983 eyes in 2013. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 So what's his answer? Don't watch anything from the past because we can't possibly get it? Incidentally, my books are on this very topic. Except my argument isn't with Meltzer it's with the people who argue that you can't really understand Shakespeare unless you read him through 1590s eyes. He's wrong. Wrestling matches can transcend the moment of their gestation. The root is not the flower, and you don't have to be part of the root to appreciate the flower -- although naturally it helps to have knowledge of said root. I'm still curious about what Meltzer thinks Brody actually did well. I might go back and have a look at 83 era WONs to see if there's anything substantive there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Can't it be both ways? Flair/Jumbo from '83 was a classic to my eyes when I first saw it a year ago. On the other hand, just about everything I saw of Brody on the set was garbage, but I can accept that people then were hot for it. Doesn't the same type of argument hold for Dynamite/Tiger Mask nowadays? I'm well past the point on Brody -- everything I've seen tells me he was trash, but some crowds were definitely hot for him, if not for his abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Dave really needs to relinquish some of his control over the Wrestling Opinion Industrial Complex. He doesn't own it, yet he seems to think he does. How is this any different from the general tone on this board that anyone who enjoys Brody at any point in his career must have a mental malfunction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Can't it be both ways? Flair/Jumbo from '83 was a classic to my eyes when I first saw it a year ago. On the other hand, just about everything I saw of Brody on the set was garbage, but I can accept that people then were hot for it. Doesn't the same type of argument hold for Dynamite/Tiger Mask nowadays? I'm well past the point on Brody -- everything I've seen tells me he was trash, but some crowds were definitely hot for him, if not for his abilities. I don't really see why there's some special case for Brody to be honest. Fans were hot for the Road Warriors. Fans were hot for Ultimate Warrior. Fans were hot for Sid. Fans were hot for George Steele. Fans were hot for Brutus Beefcake. Fans were hot for Ice Train. What's the big difference with Brody? Only one as far as I can see: he had a lot of influential friends, backstage pull and Meltzer was high on him back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Dave really needs to relinquish some of his control over the Wrestling Opinion Industrial Complex. He doesn't own it, yet he seems to think he does. How is this any different from the general tone on this board that anyone who enjoys Brody at any point in his career must have a mental malfunction? Has anyone said anything remotely resembling that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 29, 2013 Report Share Posted August 29, 2013 Can't it be both ways? Flair/Jumbo from '83 was a classic to my eyes when I first saw it a year ago. On the other hand, just about everything I saw of Brody on the set was garbage, but I can accept that people then were hot for it. Doesn't the same type of argument hold for Dynamite/Tiger Mask nowadays? I'm well past the point on Brody -- everything I've seen tells me he was trash, but some crowds were definitely hot for him, if not for his abilities. I don't really see why there's some special case for Brody to be honest. Fans were hot for the Road Warriors. Fans were hot for Ultimate Warrior. Fans were hot for Sid. Fans were hot for George Steele. Fans were hot for Brutus Beefcake. Fans were hot for Ice Train. What's the big difference with Brody? Only one as far as I can see: he had a lot of influential friends, backstage pull and Meltzer was high on him back in the day. 1) Brody got to name his own terms which made a lot of guys in the business envious and even proud 2) It seems like Brody did help a number of young guys when it came to neogitation lessons and what not or with Japan 3) He died relatively young and tragically and in a way that was as pro wrestling sleaze legend as it gets 4) He thus never had a chance to sell out to Vince (or Crocket, or really anyone) 5) A whole generation of fans basically only heard of him instead of seeing him 6) Basically, he makes a great symbol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Can't it be both ways? Flair/Jumbo from '83 was a classic to my eyes when I first saw it a year ago. On the other hand, just about everything I saw of Brody on the set was garbage, but I can accept that people then were hot for it. Doesn't the same type of argument hold for Dynamite/Tiger Mask nowadays? I'm well past the point on Brody -- everything I've seen tells me he was trash, but some crowds were definitely hot for him, if not for his abilities. I don't really see why there's some special case for Brody to be honest. Fans were hot for the Road Warriors. Fans were hot for Ultimate Warrior. Fans were hot for Sid. Fans were hot for George Steele. Fans were hot for Brutus Beefcake. Fans were hot for Ice Train. What's the big difference with Brody? Only one as far as I can see: he had a lot of influential friends, backstage pull and Meltzer was high on him back in the day. 5) A whole generation of fans basically only heard of him instead of seeing him I think this, plus bonus points from the Apter mags, is the key point. People who regularly watched domestic wrestling during this era simply didn't see him. Now that people who care are getting to go back and get the chance to see what was there its simply not that impressive. That's really the difference for Brody vs. the Warriors or Warrior. They had national forums where people were able to compare what they heard versus the actual meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 The root is not the flower, and you don't have to be part of the root to appreciate the flower -- although naturally it helps to have knowledge of said root. I love you man, but that makes me want to punch you in the face, make you drink beers until you're wasted, punch you again, and THEN watch some rasslin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 30, 2013 Report Share Posted August 30, 2013 Can we make them root beers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 So if contemporary opinion is all that matters and how well matches and wrestlers hold up decades later is irrelevant, is there any value in watching old footage? I'd like to see Dave address that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted August 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think Loss said it best earlier... Dave thinks people shitting on Brody are comparing him to today's wrestlers. I don't think he knows or cares people are comparing Brody to his peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 I Also think that he thinks that if it worked back then (Drew, popped crowds, inspired fear, etc), then who are we to say otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 31, 2013 Report Share Posted August 31, 2013 But Dave would say that even if we're comparing 80s matches to other 80s matches, we're doing it from a 21st century perspective. He's also said that if a match is thought to have sucked when it happened, it still sucks even if it ages better than matches that were considered great. So I ask again: if that's the case, is there any value to watching old matches, to say nothing of discovering previously unknown footage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 I Also think that he thinks that if it worked back then (Drew, popped crowds, inspired fear, etc), then who are we to say otherwise? The problem with this is, as someone has already said, Dave hated Hulk Hogan in the 80s. He can separate working ability from effectiveness when he wants to. I posed the "can we not watch or judge old footage at all then?" question in the Board thread to Dave, but he never replied to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 I think it's pretty funny that Dave talked about how that one really over Brody match was all kicking and punching as if the critics of Brody are people criticizing guys with limited offense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted September 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 But Dave would say that even if we're comparing 80s matches to other 80s matches, we're doing it from a 21st century perspective. He's also said that if a match is thought to have sucked when it happened, it still sucks even if it ages better than matches that were considered great. So I ask again: if that's the case, is there any value to watching old matches, to say nothing of discovering previously unknown footage? If you accept Dave's view, then you should not watch old footage. You should just accept his word on what was good and what sucked. And if you happen to see old footage, just like what Dave liked because that is the right thing to like. But of course you should watch old footage because that perspective is fucking stupid. The entire 80s DVDVR project and 90s Yearbook project blow that whole fucking thing out of the water. We are discovering so many fucking great matches, when the entire thing is done, I probably never need to watch anything but 80s sets and 90s yearbooks again and be happy to be a wrestling fan. And people are disagreeing about what was good and what was bad on those too. I find it really strange that when Dave disagrees with somebody, he pulls out such a lazy defense. We can't believe our lying eyes? Fuck it, I call dibs on a Brody podcast. Anyone want to join in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 But Dave would say that even if we're comparing 80s matches to other 80s matches, we're doing it from a 21st century perspective. He's also said that if a match is thought to have sucked when it happened, it still sucks even if it ages better than matches that were considered great. So I ask again: if that's the case, is there any value to watching old matches, to say nothing of discovering previously unknown footage? If you accept Dave's view, then you should not watch old footage. You should just accept his word on what was good and what sucked. And if you happen to see old footage, just like what Dave liked because that is the right thing to like. But of course you should watch old footage because that perspective is fucking stupid. The entire 80s DVDVR project and 90s Yearbook project blow that whole fucking thing out of the water. We are discovering so many fucking great matches, when the entire thing is done, I probably never need to watch anything but 80s sets and 90s yearbooks again and be happy to be a wrestling fan. And people are disagreeing about what was good and what was bad on those too. I find it really strange that when Dave disagrees with somebody, he pulls out such a lazy defense. We can't believe our lying eyes? Fuck it, I call dibs on a Brody podcast. Anyone want to join in? We should have a Brody symposium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted September 1, 2013 Report Share Posted September 1, 2013 Potential questions for symposium: 1. Who carried Brody more effectively Carlos Colon or Jerry Blackwell? 2. What other guys had looks and entrances as good but sucked as bad in the ring? 3. What other idolized 80's stars suck worse? (my position here would be none and that includes Sayama who had his moments) 4. How in the hell did he have some of his better matches with Dory Funk Jr. of all people? 5. True or False: Brody holding up and fucking with promoters was his biggest positive (I represent the True side of this argument). 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.