1980s Wrestling Party #14

[JerryvonKramer]

Wow, Dylan and I have super synergy on this reading the thread, to the extent where now I'm worried it kinda looks like I've deliberately copied him. I haven't. We've made exactly the same points on the two cage matches independently -- and we're two guys known for having big differences -- so there has to be something to say for that. Reading Chad's comments it seems that he's not a million miles away from thinking the same either.

 

I'm not going to have a go at Will or anyone else for preferring the first one, I understand it, I understand why you're high on it, I just think you're riding emotion more than analysis and allowing it to blind you to some of the serious flaws in its structure (and in my view the performances, especially Shawn's).

 

If you go through my points and Dylan's points, they are substantially the same as Matt D's points, only Matt D seems to have got carried away to the extent of giving it *.

 

I think he overlooks how good the heel control segement is and -- if you like me just hated Shawn in the first half -- how good it felt to see him get his head kicked in during that.

 

Matt D in that post, I think, is a case of Michael Moore syndrome: he's making valid points but pushing them a bit too far and using it (a little bit) as a crusade against a philosophy he dislikes intensely.

 

His reading of the match though is substantially the same as mine, including the bit about the match starting so brutally that it had nowhere to go.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I just think you're riding emotion more than analysis and allowing it to blind you to some of the serious flaws in its structure (and in my view the performances, especially Shawn's).

I love ya, man, and I know you didn't mean it this way, but that's just an insulting, condescending, pile of horseshit.

 

Wrestling isn't supposed to be about analysis. It's supposed to about emotion. It's fun to analyze matches, it's what we all do. But when you take some sort of "higher road" when watching this shit...well...there's a reason analysis starts with anal.

[goodhelmet]

I love Kooks.

[JerryvonKramer]

And reading the rest of the DVDR thread post-Matt D rant, quite a few other people felt the same way as me about Shawn's performance.

 

It didn't come off as two heels getting their just desserts, it came off as The Rockers being dickhead heels. And The Rockers' demeanor during this wasn't even a celebratory "we finally got you on our terms" manner, they were just being ruthless assholes. Shawn spitting at Buddy Rose came off as not heroic, but spiteful.

Another guy, writing in November 2012, totally independently coming up with the same observation.

 

I really hated how completely dominant The Rockers were early on. I mean it's one thing for babyfaces to beat up and outwrestle the heels for the first 10 minutes or so until the transition, but it's another thing entirely to have them bleeding all over the place and pulling them up from multiple pin attempts to beat on them some more.

There's goc

 

The crowd barely cares at all because no heat had been built whatsoever. It's just the two heels getting tossed into the cage just to get tossed into the cage. I did like Buddy crotching himself on the top turnbuckle but that could have been in such better placement and meant so much more. Instead it was just another spot. I HATED Shawn and Marty acting like heels here. I absolutely hated it. Sherri was outstanding at ringside and I give big props to her but the first half of this match was absolutely TERRIBLE.

There's Hales Jr.

 

It's very interesting to see such a hard split on that opening ten minutes.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just think you're riding emotion more than analysis and allowing it to blind you to some of the serious flaws in its structure (and in my view the performances, especially Shawn's).

I love ya, man, and I know you didn't mean it this way, but that's just an insulting, condescending, pile of horseshit.

 

Wrestling isn't supposed to be about analysis. It's supposed to about emotion. It's fun to analyze matches, it's what we all do. But when you take some sort of "higher road" when watching this shit...well...there's a reason analysis starts with anal.

 

All I've seen from you or Will is just blanket rejection of criticism of that match. You can argue through reasoning or you can argue through conviction. I think you've argued mainly through conviction from an emotional place.

 

Your whole philosophy for rating matches is based on emotion. You've said it time and time again. That's fine.

 

Mine is a cominbation of lots of things including analysing structure. I don't have the same philosophy as you.

 

Matt D is the opposite extreme. It's all good, makes for interesting debate.

 

I've already said:

 

I'm not going to have a go at Will or anyone else for preferring the first one, I understand it, I understand why you're high on it.

Do we have to spell out each and every time "This is my opinion, you're entitled to yours and that's ok, we're all equal here let's hold hands and sing the hallelujah chorus"?

 

Let's reason this out a second.

 

You've said "I rate matches on emotion, screw structure". That's the point you make again and again.

 

I say: "in this case emotion has blinded you to real flaws in this match"

 

You say: "that's condescending and you're taking the high road"

 

How'd you work that one out? How's it condescending? How's it taking a high road?

 

I might say that you accusing people who think Shawn is doing anything other than getting his "just desserts" of not understanding the "kayfabe story" of the match is insulting and condscending. I don't because there's just no point doing down that road.

 

There's no high or low road. We just disagree. I think you're wrong for X reasons, you think I'm wrong for Y reasons.

[Dylan Waco]

I just think you're riding emotion more than analysis and allowing it to blind you to some of the serious flaws in its structure (and in my view the performances, especially Shawn's).

I love ya, man, and I know you didn't mean it this way, but that's just an insulting, condescending, pile of horseshit.

 

Wrestling isn't supposed to be about analysis. It's supposed to about emotion. It's fun to analyze matches, it's what we all do. But when you take some sort of "higher road" when watching this shit...well...there's a reason analysis starts with anal.

 

I can see how it would read condescending. I can also see how talk about what wrestling is "supposed to" be "about" would read as condescending.

 

My thought is that wrestling can primarily be about emotion and be analyzed. I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. In fact I think without analysis, or thinking about a match or whatever it's really hard to even know what to do with visceral emotional response when it comes to ranking/discussing matches (obviously enjoying them is a different matter). I mean the FBI v. Dudley with D-Von debut from Queens is something I mark out for every time I see it, to the point where there is virtually nothing in wrestling I have viscerally enjoyed more, but I can't imagine actually arguing that it was better than something like Jumbo/Martel. I could assert that it was better and just say "emotion is there, the end" but I'm not sure what to do with that and if I didn't expand upon it people would think I was insane or trolling.

[goodhelmet]

All I've seen from you or Will is just blanket rejection of criticism of that match. You can argue through reasoning or you can argue through conviction. I think you've argued mainly through conviction from an emotional place.

My argument from the first time I saw the match was that the structure itself was not a detriment to the match. That is the argument between myself and Matt D. I actually agree with Dylan that wrestling can be analyzed and be about emotion. We did that. We marked out (emotion) and said WHY we liked the match and why we thought the criticism was horseshit (analysis). Maybe we didn't do a good enough job because we moved on to the next match which was also awesome.

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess all I heard was you saying something along the lines of "I disagree with all of Matt D's points and think they are horseshit" which seems more like a conviction statement than a reasoned out one.

 

The argument really comes down to the first 10 minutes and:

 

1. whether or not you think The Rockers (and Shawn in particular) were justified in working the match as dick semi-heels.

 

2. whether or not you agree with the idea that them basically killing Doug Somers during that sequence is structurally ass-backwards not only because the match has nowhere to go, but also because it puts Buddy Rose in the really odd position of seeming like he's making a big comeback.

 

If you read through the threads at DVDR, it seems like most people agree with Matt D on those two points.

 

I might have missed it, but what's the counter-argument?

 

I've seen "they were getting their just desserts" and that's about it. There was someone at DVDR (was it Pete?) arguing that Shawn getting overconfident and then getting killed himself by the more experienced heels "makes sense" as a narrative. Is that what you think too?

 

My view, honestly, is that Shawn comes off as a dislikable heel and made me actively want to see him get his ass handed to him. I'm not sure if "young babyface gets too cocky" is a very good narrative.

 

If you or Johnny do, then I'd love to hear the case for it. I'm not having a go or anything, I think the level of disagreement on this match is pretty interesting.

 

------------------

 

All that said, I was thinking about this a bit more earlier, and I do have some questions for Matt D too, however.

 

When I gave my comments on the first cage match, you'll notice most of it took the form of a comparison with Final Conflict which -- structurally -- is more or less identical to this match.

 

1. Long face shine sequence where one of the heels gets annihilated

2. Long FIP sequence

3. Finish

 

Over on DVDR, one of the posters (not familiar with him "crippler" something) said that this structure, with the long extended shine, is the norm for AWA and it isn't unique to this match. The main differences with Final Conflict, as I noted, are in how the shine is worked: Steamboat and Youngblood wrestle it as if butter wouldn't melt in their lovely babyface mouths. And we don't get our first cage shot until at least 12 or 13 minutes in. The structure is the SAME though.

 

So I have three questions:

 

1. Do you also hate Final Conflict? If you haven't seen it, I'd love to know what you make of that.

2. Are you equally down on all the other AWA tags that have this structure? And if not, why not?

3. How much of your dislike of this match actually comes down to the way it is worked as opposed to dissatisfaction with the logic of the structure?

[WingedEagle]

What's wrong with a conviction statement? If a match / movie / book requires a technical breakdown to appreciate it, is it really that special if it doesn't connect with you otherwise? And vice versa?

[JerryvonKramer]

What's wrong with a conviction statement? If a match / movie / book requires a technical breakdown to appreciate it, is it really that special if it doesn't connect with you otherwise? And vice versa?

Will is arguing in the preceding post that his stance on the match isn't just based on emotion, but on reasoning too. i.e. that he's making more than just a conviction statement. So once you take the step of reasoning something out, you have to leave conviction at the door because that's not persuading anyone (or at least not anyone who is thinking it through).

 

I would also say that if you are going to lean on conviction statements alone, there's no point having the debate, because by their nature they leave no scope for it. It's Juror #3, the Lee J. Cobb character in 12 Angry Men. PWO, as a message board, is characterised by reasoning arguments out rather than leaning on conviction statements -- there are plenty of boards out there which are characterised mainly by conviction arguments and you end up with pages of 1 line posts ("Bret rules, HBK sucks", "HBK doesn't suck, he's the GOAT" etc. etc.).

[Dylan Waco]

What's wrong with a conviction statement? If a match / movie / book requires a technical breakdown to appreciate it, is it really that special if it doesn't connect with you otherwise? And vice versa?

I actually don't think there is anything wrong with a conviction statement, but on a message board or even in a general discussion about something they pretty much are worthless.

[Matt D]

i haven't seen Final Conflict in years. I think there's a "Road to Greensboro" thing on youtube that leads up to it, no? I'd like to watch all that again and then watch it before commenting and I've got a lot on my plate right now, but I'll get to it. I'll look at the rest of what you said and give you a reply on Monday. It's a sort of busy weekend here.

[goodhelmet]

My view, honestly, is that Shawn comes off as a dislikable heel and made me actively want to see him get his ass handed to him. I'm not sure if "young babyface gets too cocky" is a very good narrative.

 

If you or Johnny do, then I'd love to hear the case for it. I'm not having a go or anything, I think the level of disagreement on this match is pretty interesting.

 

------------------

 

 

Why isn't it a very good narrative? The babyfaces finally get the heels in a cage where the heels can't use the things heels use to take advantage. They have no where to hide. The faces prove they are better when the heels can't cheat or have outside interference (Sherri was great here too when she was so helpless to help) or abuse the ref. I thought the structure was weird but didn't think it was a detriment. When faces are able to control a long portion of the match in a cage free from interference until their hubris costs them and turns the tide of the match, that is perfectly acceptable storytelling. You say the Rockers were working as dick heels. I believe they were working like every other over-babyface in the 80s who would beat heels by being meaner than the heels. Nothing wrong with that. Add in the points I make under Dylan's thoughts and it only makes the match better in my view.

 

 

These were my initial thoughts that were reinforced when I watched the match on the podcast...

 

Another vicious cage match with HBK channeling his inner-Abdullah, biting the forehead of Somers. Once Rose came in, he was great, bumping around, but Somers is the star of this show. Weird structure as the heels didn't gain an advantage until almost 10 minutes in. Thankfully, the Michaels FIP segment was awesome. He and Somers are having a bleeding contest and HBKJ is winning. What a great match.

 

These were Dylan's initial thoughts in nominating the match...

 

The pagaentry of the pre-match stuff is a lot of fun and adds to this. Rockers come in and just destroy the heels tossing them wildly into the Cage. Sherri is going crazy as Buddy blades early and Michaels throws jabs at Somers flooring him. Somers blades big time. Marty goes to bang the heels heads together and Rose rakes his eyes instead and then tosses him into the Cage. Martel is on the floor literally crying and screaming for Buddy to kill him. Buddy goes up top but Marty kips up and Rose ends up getting crotched and then having the back of his head slammed into the cage over and over. Rose ends up punching Jannetty in the balls to kill momentum but Marty comes back and just starts wailing on Rose. The heels just look dead to the World and the faces are oddly methodical picking them over. Michaels hits a nice diving elbow for a nearfall on Somers. Shawn challenges Rose to come in while they rake Doug over the Cage. Michaels wipes blood on his hand and appears to lick it before decking Somers. Somers goes low with a headbutt and crawls over tagging in Rose. Michaels takes an AWESOME slingshot bump into the steel and gets busted open and Rose is awesome laying in the punches while Michaels stumbles around punch drunk. Rose gets a nearfall and then another off of a DDT. Rose returns the favor and starts licking Michaels blood. Michaels is actually really great throwing loopy jabs only to get bit on the cut by Rose who then spits the blood into the crowd. Michaels is a fucking mess and they just run back and fourth grating Shawn's face against the steel. Michaels takes a wild back body drop and then gets crotched on the top rope. Somers and Shawn brawling on the mat was awesome and felt super intense. Shawn hits a great kneelift and then runs to make the tag. Crazy stuff abounds as Rose tries to crawl out and ends up taking a wild bump down. Jannetty hits a diving splash for the pin. This is an awesome blood bath and will probably contend for number one on a lot ballots.

Dylan does more play by play and lists specific spots and moments he thought looked great so now not only is the structure not a problem (for me, it never was) but their are specific points he makes where the actual execution/camera shots/sequences make this a great match in my view. On rewatch, I agreed with my initial assessment, Dylan disliked it more on repeated viewing. You gave the match a B+. What is that in star rating terms? Matt D's comments make it appear like he thinks it is one of the worst matches on the set. I think it is one of the best. You may not like the structure (again, still don't buy the argument that the faces were dick heels) but you clearly are more in the "I liked this" camp than the "I hated this" camp.

[JerryvonKramer]

B+ is ****

 

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the way Shawn was working during that match. Beating the shit out of Somers is one thing, pulling him up on 2 counts, spitting in his face, pushing him over with one finger -- all those are just dick moves for me.

 

I'm just not sure I buy the idea of a babyface in 1986 in the supposedly traditional AWA having arrogance, disrespect and hubris like that. A positive spin might be that Shawn was being progressive or subversive in some way -- my take is that it's not an appropriate performance to the role he was meant to be playing.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a face from this era behave like that in a match, save possibly Hogan in one or two matches (and even then nowhere near to this extent) and maybe The Fantastics in that match vs. Gilbert and Simmons when they were getting booed -- but there I justify it because they were clearly heeling it up in a face vs. face encounter and were on their way out anyway (and again, nowhere near to the same extent).

 

All-in-all, I'm in the "in between two extremes" camp. I think it's a very good, intensely worked, bloody, and at times genuinately awesome match that has some serious problems -- mainly with Shawn's performance and the way that first 10 minutes are worked (I think the structure isn't a problem in itself: see Final Conflict). In a way for me the total beating he gets from Rose and Somers in the FIP almost makes it worth it -- but then even allowing for the fact I'm lifelong heel fan, the match shouldn't be working in that way.

 

Obviously Matt D saying "this is my 149" is completely OTT and overlooks the match's many positives, but it's got no chance of my top 10 either and I'm one of those who thinks the second cage match is better.

 

But thanks for taking time out to outline your position, much appreciated.

 

The debate and areas of disagreement is one of the things that makes this whole process great, and fun.

[Dylan Waco]

To me the second half of the match really saves it. I can almost buy the argument that the second half of the match was worked strongly enough where in a way it justifies some of the flaws I think are obvious about the first half of the match. If nothing else I really like the second half enough to keep it from being anything close to a cellar dweller and in fact it will place reasonable well on my ballot. But of the matches that will do pretty decently on my ballot (top half), I doubt there is one I think is more flawed. And while I think Matt pushes his legit criticisms to far, I think of the two most heavily debated matches on this forum (this and Rheingans v. Martel), I at least understand and grasp Matt's argument/take here and I get why he has the match in the basement even if I think it is an extremely radical position to take.

[Matt D]

I will say that part of why I do dislike it so strongly is because of the other strengths in the match. They have this match that should have been great and they just utterly destroy it. And then they run it a few weeks later and make it absolutely great. Wrestling isn't math. It you add up the composite parts, the first cage match is probably mathematically great. Instead, it's chemistry. There's one element added to the mix and it causes the whole thing to turn sour.

 

Obviously, I realize my position is extreme and maybe a little overblown. I'm still sticking to it.

[goodhelmet]

And I am still sticking to the position that you are wrong. Good deal.

[goodhelmet]

B+ is ****

 

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the way Shawn was working during that match. Beating the shit out of Somers is one thing, pulling him up on 2 counts, spitting in his face, pushing him over with one finger -- all those are just dick moves for me.

 

I'm just not sure I buy the idea of a babyface in 1986 in the supposedly traditional AWA having arrogance, disrespect and hubris like that. A positive spin might be that Shawn was being progressive or subversive in some way -- my take is that it's not an appropriate performance to the role he was meant to be playing.

Hogan based his entire first world title run on out-heeling the heels. Dusty and Ron Garvin were complete dicks in their matches. It isn't a new concept or one that was unique to Michaels in this one match.

[Dylan Waco]

Michaels was a blowjob babyface pretty boy. I realize the particulars of this are a lost cause (you think the criticisms of the match are wildly wrong, I think they are transparently correct), but I do think it's a pretty massive stretch to compare near rookie, light heavy, blowjob babyface, pretty boy, Shawn Michaels to 1984 Hulk Hogan, let alone Dusty or Garvin.

 

Staying at home in the AWA you could point to Greg Gagne as a guy who worked as a dickish face in a ton of tags, but I don't think I ever saw anything from him that even came close to what we saw in the "face shine" of the cage match in question.

[Matt D]

And I am still sticking to the position that you are wrong. Good deal.

I am okay with this. It's all Parv being a laggard and just getting to this that is the issue.

[goodhelmet]

Michaels was a blowjob babyface pretty boy. I realize the particulars of this are a lost cause (you think the criticisms of the match are wildly wrong, I think they are transparently correct), but I do think it's a pretty massive stretch to compare near rookie, light heavy, blowjob babyface, pretty boy, Shawn Michaels to 1984 Hulk Hogan, let alone Dusty or Garvin.

 

Staying at home in the AWA you could point to Greg Gagne as a guy who worked as a dickish face in a ton of tags, but I don't think I ever saw anything from him that even came close to what we saw in the "face shine" of the cage match in question.

My point is that even if it is out of place for Shawn Michaels but that it wasn't uncommon.

[JerryvonKramer]

I've seen tons of Hogan and Dusty and Garvin and never seen them pull some of the shit Shawn was doing there.

 

The point is not that every babyface of the 80s had to be a Steamboat-style goody-two-shoes -- we've seen Bock on this very set work face with many heelish characteristics -- the point is that what Shawn was doing in that match goes way way beyond something like 84-5 Hogan "outheeling the heels".

 

Hogan could give someone a mauling, he could use back rakes and bites and chairs and cheat and whatever else, but I'm not buying that he regularly did some of that shit Shawn was pulling in that match. Shit, even the bloody Road Warriors never went that far. And if either Hogan or the Road Warriors did have a match where they were behaving like that, I'd fully expect everyone come down on them like a ton of bricks for it.

[WingedEagle]

No question I agree with the statement about PWO, as its the main reason I can spend hours here at a time and always find something to reread. At the same time, I'm not quick to dismiss the visceral reaction upon a first watch or rewatch. Its those occasions where your visceral reaction is backed up by a thorough analysis after the fact that separates the classics from your impressionable youth from those you watch, love and develop a further appreciation for the second or third time around. At least for this guy

[Childs]

Will mentioned this thread to me on the phone, so I went back to watch the match, which I liked a lot on first viewing. And it still worked for me. The Rockers had been feuding with these guys for months, and they were tired of being nice guys. They had Buddy and Doug in the cage and they weren't going to pass up this opportunity to unleash hell, to the point where their blood lust got the better of their senses. And here's the key thing for me: They paid a price for abandoning their normal character. Michaels took a terrible, bloody beating. If you want to tell me the initial section of Rockers offense went on too long, okay maybe, though Buddy broke it up with some teased momentum changes. But I don't see some fundamental flaw in the structure or spirit of the match. I've told Matt this before: I appreciate that he watches wrestling with a point of view and articulates his arguments well. But I feel like this match, where the blood and moment-to-moment intensity were the keys to the spectacle, fell into a kind of blind spot for him because he couldn't get past the structure.

 

All of that said, I also love the second cage match and haven't decided which one I'll rank higher on my final tally. They'll both be top 20.

[Graham Crackers]

Both cage matches were in my top 20. I like the idea of the first one being about the Rockers going too far. It reminds me of that match on the NJPW set where Inoki teams with Masa Saito. The finish involved Saito being more interested in hurting the opponent than ending the match so Inoki tags himself in and finishes it while looking disgusted that he could have ever teamed with Saito.