JerryvonKramer Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'm going away for a week now to Dubai, but leaving you with two pretty bumper shows. Chad and I had a lot of fun recording this with Robert and I encourage you to check out his fanzine The Atomic Elbow. As terrible as most of The Crockett Cup 88 was, this show was a blast. Where the Big Boys Play #24 - Crockett Cup 88: Part 1 Chad and Parv are joined by Robert aka The Atomic Elbow, author of the print-only wrestling fanzine of the same name, to review the first couple of rounds of the The Crockett Cup 1988. In a packed show: Chad gives his thoughts on Clash 1, another look at the ongoing debate about Sting as a Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame candidate, Robert and Chad talk about the indy scene in Georgia including Peach State Wrestling, speculation as to who the hell Mighty Wilbur was and the limitations of internet research, Chad reveals the origin story of the AAA camera men, Chad and Robert plot their relative social positions on The Varsity Club Scale, WWE revisionism about the 1988 version of the horsemen (as opposed to the 1986 version), memories of various Italian wrestlers from the past mainly called 'Salvatore', Robert reveals that he is possibly the world's biggest fan of 'Pistol' Pez Shaska Whatley, Dave Meltzer's thoughts on little girls in the NWA crowds of 1988, and some criticisms of JCP video-tape presentation vs WWF presentation. Where the Big Boys Play #25 - Crockett Cup 88: Part 2 Robert, Chad and Parv wrap up their extensive look at Crockett Cup 88 from round 3 to the final. In this episode: ranking New Zealand on the list of countries to inspire ire from the patriotic US rasslin fans, wrestlers from Scandinavia, the realism of Rick Martel's arrogance and 6-year-old Chad's Christmas wishlist, a Big-Bossman-inspired wild tangent on US 'biscuits' that you serve with 'gravy' for breakfast vs UK biscuits that you dunk in your tea, the possible origins of the scars on Dusty's arms, end of show awards, and much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 WWE revisionism about the 1988 version of the horsemen (as opposed to the 1986 version), I'm not entirely sure that the Flair/Arn/Tully/Windham lineup as "THE BEST HORSEMEN LINEUP EVER" is a WWE revisionist history though. I've seen that lineup highlighted as being the best era in places years before the WWE purchased WCW and the Horsemen legacy. Probably in part due to Arn/Tully being seen as a more regarded tag team than Arn/Ole (or any permutation of the Horsemen tag team entrant). Perhaps that is also due to Arn/Tully's time as The Brain Busters in the WWF as well, exposure in one of the hottest eras in WWF Tag Team history probably helped their legacy as a team. Could also be due to the US title that Barry Windham had during his Horsemen run, that the original lineup never had, by that point had been elevated to the secondary title while the Television Title both Arn and Tully would have in 1986, and Tully would hold for most of 1987 can be seen as a lesser title. After Nikita defeats Tully in August of 1987, I don't think the Horsemen control it ever again (correct me if I'm wrong, I know Arn holds it a bunch more times in the 90s, but I don't think ever again as a member of the Horsemen). So, it's really partly because at one time the Horsemen control all three main titles during that time frame of 1988, the World title, the US title, and the World Tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Oh yeah, it's not WWE "revisionism" at all. Speaking as someone who was a fan at the time, we all thought "this Horsemen group is the best, they hold all the belts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 They certainly don't feel as kickass as the original group when watching these shows. I'd probably take Ole's mic work and Tully solo over the virtues of the latter group. The 88 version is also curiously short-lived to be the greatest version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 They certainly don't feel as kickass as the original group when watching these shows. I'd probably take Ole's mic work and Tully solo over the virtues of the latter group. The 88 version is also curiously short-lived to be the greatest version. Maybe looking back, sure. But at the time we all thought Ole sucked, and Windham was a perfect choice. They looked more kick ass and held all the gold. So at the time everyone felt that this was the best Horsemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted January 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 My impression is that the 88 Horsemen were COOL heels. In the same way the Dangerous Alliance and the NWO were cool heels. And holding all the belts at once is a very cool looking visual, I always thought The Radicalz and even Evolution looked really kick ass too. But on this show we were really talking about the beef between Ole and Vince, the tightness between the Mulligans and the McMahons and the way that the WWE has consistently played up the Windham version of the Horsemen over the Ole version, including the HoF deal. Is that not revisionism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 My impression is that the 88 Horsemen were COOL heels. In the same way the Dangerous Alliance and the NWO were cool heels. And holding all the belts at once is a very cool looking visual, I always thought The Radicalz and even Evolution looked really kick ass too. But on this show we were really talking about the beef between Ole and Vince, the tightness between the Mulligans and the McMahons and the way that the WWE has consistently played up the Windham version of the Horsemen over the Ole version, including the HoF deal. Is that not revisionism? It's not revisionism if it's based on how most people feel. And the idea that Ole is the victim of some sort of conspiracy between Vince and the Mulligan family is Oliver Stone level wacky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 To be fair, I wonder if the selection of an "era" for the Horsemen rather than the group as a whole was more due to Chris Benoit, and not a longstanding feud with Ole Anderson. And like Johnny said, it's more of an opinion that the Horsemen were at their peak in 1988, even with the short tenure of the Flair/Arn/Tully/Windham lineup, as opposed to their beginnings with Ole. I think your point would be valid though if they went with a Nitro era Horsemen lineup (but then again the 800 Pound Canadian Gorilla is there for all different incarnations of the lineup during the Monday Night War era) since, while they were still a hot stable, no way could anyone justify any of them as the definitive Horsemen lineup. I think a better example of revisionism is something like trying to make it seem that Steve Austin's feud with Bret Hart happened instantly after KOR '95 (Austin 3:16 promo) when Austin was spinning his wheels for a couple of months before the anti-Bret stuff and Pillman stuff started up. Another would be the extent that Triple H was punished for the "Curtain Call." Yeah, the booking of KOR was changed, but he wasn't off television or getting squashed consistently by jobbers the way the WWE history wants you to believe at this point. He was jobbing, but he was on TV and he was in decent matches. 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.