If Not Race Then Who?

[JerryvonKramer]

One little thing from last night I'm not willing to let go because it rankles with me. Both Dylan and jdw did it and I must pull them up on it.

 

Let's say Backlund didn't get his title win in 94, anyone on here would be laughed off the board for suggesting it as even a remote possibility.

 

My point with Ivan is only that it might have been an option in certain conditions. That's all.

Backlund had the belt for what, a day or two? It's not even close to the same thing.

 

Let's say Backlund didn't get his title win in 94, anyone on here would be laughed off the board for suggesting it as even a remote possibility.

The point of Backlund winning the title was to instantly get the belt off the WWF's top face (Bret) and hand it a couple of days later to someone Vince wanted to be the new top face (Nash), without:

 

* having to do Bret vs Nash at that point (save it to pop the Rumble)

* having to job Bret to Nash (which Vince didn't do)

* having the belt on Backlund for long (fewer fingers than are on a hand)

 

That's not remotely the same thing as headlining Starcade with Flair-Ivan.

 

 

Was that what I was trying to argue with that example? Let me write it down what I was saying in logical form so you can follow each step of the argument:

 

Premise 1: Very strange things happen in wrestling [for example, Backlund in 94, for example, David Arquette, for example, Gene Okerlund had a match, for example ANY STRANGE THING THAT HAPPENED -- the example is illustraitive not necessary]

Premise 2: Very strange things that have happened in wrestling that couldn't be have been predicted through studying the context.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, anything is possible in wrestling, and anything is on the table.

Conclusion 2: Therefore, give me a bloody break about Ivan.

 

As you can see this is not an argument from analogy. At no stage in that argument am I saying that Ivan in 83 = Backlund in 94. Yet, that's the argument you are both countering there. Backlund in 94 wasn't the important point, it was an example of "something very strange" happening. Why did you seize on it in that way? Why did you make the inference that I was trying to say that they were THE SAME?

 

Not accusing you of Bad Faith, but asking you to follow the argument and counter appropriately rather than this knee-jerk "must prove wrong with FACTS" response that has the sideeffect of putting me in a position of saying something I never said. To anyone just skimming this now and reading your posts there it looks like I was trying to say that Ivan 83 = Backlund 94. That's not fair. I don't want to be misrepresented.

 

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

 

One thing more. The point about trying to prove Patera in 81 was more likely in Ivan in 83 was conceded here:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5546449

 

Look at the time stamp.

 

23 minutes later, jdw posted this:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5546452

 

A massive post trying to demonstrate a point I'd already conceded.

 

Why this overkill?

 

 

---------

 

Finally, I am still sceptical about Patera being NWA champ. Very sceptical. Nothing about his work in AWA suggests to me that he would have fit that role. Although my early WWF project (79-83) is touted for later in the year, this debate has prompted some pre-emptive action:

 

This is on his set:

 

01-21 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

03-24 Andre The Giant & Pat Patterson vs Bobby Duncum & Ken Patera (MSG)

04-21 Pat Patterson vs Ken Patera IC Title (MSG)

05-19 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

07-26 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (Spectrum)

08-09 Ken Patera vs Tony Atlas IC Title (Shea)

08-23 Ken Patera vs Gorilla Monsoon (Spectrum)

10-20 Ken Patera vs Pedro Morales IC Title (MSG)

12-29 Ken Patera vs Pat Patterson (MSG)

 

Make sure to also watch this:

 

11/08/80 Ken Patera vs Bruno Sammartino

 

Which is useful as a comp to the very heated Bruno vs Larry matches from early in the year.

Since I have these matches, why not I'll give them a watch in the next couple of weeks in the Microscope. Anyone else unfamiliar with Patera from 1980 can join me if they wish. Under evaluation will not only be Patera as a worker in general, but also the claim made by Dylan and jdw in this thread that Patera was in fact an NWA-champ style worker in 1980. If he was, I'll be the first to say so. My scepticism stems from the fact that workers don't often make a wholesale change in their style in the space of a couple of years.

[Al]

If you gave me a choice between Funk and Race in 1983, I'd honestly take Race. Funk would've been a more exciting champion. But I think Flair beating Race meant more.

 

It's worth noting for storyline purposes as well that Flair didn't beat Race for championship #1. He beat Dusty Rhodes.

[JerryvonKramer]

Muchnick retired as a promoter on Jan 1 1982. I don't know anyone who argues his influence past that point was all that big, though he was still pulling strings behind the scenes to one degree or another for a couple of years.

 

Who in this thread is arguing that St. Louis was the "center" of the NWA in 1983? Not a troll question, as I may have legitimately missed it, but I think it's well known by most people that St. Louis was in a state of chaos by that point that resulted in a brief war for the town and Vince taking over. I think it's completely fair to say that St. Louis can be overhyped to a degree even before that point, but I also think it's pretty much universally accepted that Muchnick was the power broker for years - in 1981 he still would have been an extremely powerful voice and Kiel cards were still the closest thing to a NWA version of an MSG show. Being a Muchnick favorite would have had a lot of value for any body at that point. Enough to get someone the NWA title by itself? No. But that's hardly the only thing Patera had on his resume in 81.

 

Matysik spoke favorably about Patera on many of the podcasts with Cubeta. In the book he talks him up in Stevens bio. He actually uses Patera and Blackwell as examples of great workers and makes the argument that Stevens "represents them." It's a goofy argument but it speaks to the point that Patera was a favorite of the St. Louis office. In and of itself you could take it as an off the cuff comment - but when you see how he was booked in St. Louis it's pretty clear it wasn't.

An index would have been helpful in that book. I can speak from experience that the process of putting an index together is a KILLER, usually down to the author and I can understand why Matysik didn't bother. Wish he would have though.

 

I guess for our DiBiase vs. Patera in 81 talking point, the question would be if Muchnik's love of DiBiase and his love of Patera were about equal to the extent where it becomes a moot point. Both were rated by Muchnik. Neither of them were Giegel or Crockett or Barnett guys, and it's no conicidence that neither of them ever got that run.

[Dylan Waco]

Three things

 

1. It's a worthless argument. Yes anything can and could happen in the abstract. For example I could have a fifty inch cock with wings attached to it that I use to fly to Jupiter six times a day. How likely is this? Not very likely. Arguing that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN is an argument has absolutely no value to a discussion, but in general I would be willing to "give you a break on Uncle Ivan" if that were solely what we were arguing about. But it's not. You were arguing the ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN principle as an argument in favor of Ivan in 83 v. Patera in 81. And that strikes me as a pretty desperate argument.

 

2. Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt and you weren't just tossing out something random for no reason to "prove" some point about how literally anything is possible in the abstract. Well okay. That means even if you didn't mean it as a direct analogy, you damn sure had to have thought they were worth comparing on some level. But the purposes of what we have been talking about in the thread there is really no comparison that makes referencing it relevant - "Anything is possible in wrestling, Backlund won a world title in 94!" is a meaningless and odd argument to make in this thread. "Strange things happen in wrestling with world titles because Bob Backlund had a two day reign at the low point in WWF history, which was a short transition run from one performer to another, which in turn means Ivan Kollof - who was employed by another wrestling organization - would have been theoretically on the radar to be a traveling NWA champion in 1983, used for the purpose of setting up a huge "passing the torch" moment at the biggest Crockett show in history to Ric Flair" is a pretty big leap. It's not just that the two things aren't exactly the same, or even close to the same. It's that there is really no reason to bring up one in a discussion of the other, unless it was an odd choice to make the worthless ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN abstract argument or....

 

3. In a thread where I accused you of viewing things through a WWF prism, to cite that as a point that was somehow relevant on any grounds, doesn't exactly lead me to believe my accusation was off point. I know you watch and love NWA, I listen to the podcasts you guys do with some regularity, but that doesn't mean you don't come into things with assumptions and biases based on the way you evolved as a fan. Lord knows I have

[Dylan Waco]

Finally, I am still sceptical about Patera being NWA champ. Very sceptical. Nothing about his work in AWA suggests to me that he would have fit that role. Although my early WWF project (79-83) is touted for later in the year, this debate has prompted some pre-emptive action:

 

This is on his set:

 

01-21 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

03-24 Andre The Giant & Pat Patterson vs Bobby Duncum & Ken Patera (MSG)

04-21 Pat Patterson vs Ken Patera IC Title (MSG)

05-19 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

07-26 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (Spectrum)

08-09 Ken Patera vs Tony Atlas IC Title (Shea)

08-23 Ken Patera vs Gorilla Monsoon (Spectrum)

10-20 Ken Patera vs Pedro Morales IC Title (MSG)

12-29 Ken Patera vs Pat Patterson (MSG)

 

Make sure to also watch this:

 

11/08/80 Ken Patera vs Bruno Sammartino

 

Which is useful as a comp to the very heated Bruno vs Larry matches from early in the year.

Since I have these matches, why not I'll give them a watch in the next couple of weeks in the Microscope. Anyone else unfamiliar with Patera from 1980 can join me if they wish. Under evaluation will not only be Patera as a worker in general, but also the claim made by Dylan and jdw in this thread that Patera was in fact an NWA-champ style worker in 1980. If he was, I'll be the first to say so. My scepticism stems from the fact that workers don't often make a wholesale change in their style in the space of a couple of years.

 

Patera was a tag worker in the AWA. That requires a different set up of tools. I don't think his work was radically different, just as I don't necessarily think Jack Brisco's work was radically different in 1983 then it was when he was champ. Different things get emphasized, matches are built different ways, et

 

I'd be pretty shocked if you thought he was (or was able) to work NWA-champ style because I still suspect your conception of that style and mine are radically different and nothing that has been said in this thread gives me any reason to think otherwise. But I would like to hear your thoughts on the matches one way or the other.

[Dylan Waco]

I guess for our DiBiase vs. Patera in 81 talking point, the question would be if Muchnik's love of DiBiase and his love of Patera were about equal to the extent where it becomes a moot point. Both were rated by Muchnik. Neither of them were Giegel or Crockett or Barnett guys, and it's no conicidence that neither of them ever got that run.

Sam was very high on Flair too. I am speculating, but with the benefit of hindsight I would guess that there would be some who would have thought Patera had already peaked as a "national" star as he had already run through a ton of places (Dallas, Oklahoma, Hawaii, AWA, Crockett, WWF, Toronto, St. Louis, Georgia, Houston, perhaps other places I'm forgetting) and the biggest of the big name babyfaces by 81. Dibiase by contrast might have been seen as "too green" in terms of being proven as a versatile performer, who could draw in several different environments. Flair might have been seen as a happy medium, who had the added benefit of being the top singles guy in the biggest current NWA territory.

[JerryvonKramer]

Patera was a tag worker in the AWA. That requires a different set up of tools. I don't think his work was radically different, just as I don't necessarily think Jack Brisco's work was radically different in 1983 then it was when he was champ. Different things get emphasized, matches are built different ways, et

 

I'd be pretty shocked if you thought he was (or was able) to work NWA-champ style because I still suspect your conception of that style and mine are radically different and nothing that has been said in this thread gives me any reason to think otherwise. But I would like to hear your thoughts on the matches one way or the other.

The only thing I'd say about him in AWA is that whether it's Ventura or Blackwell on the apron, frequently he's the guy bumping around during those extended shine sequences. That's something I associate with NWA-champ style: a guy who can bump and make the opponent look good. Patera does his share of that in those tag matches.

 

Where I'm less sold is on how he is presented and presents himself as a worker. His moveset is in the ballpark of "power wrestling". Bearhugs and full nelsons. Strongman moves. For all their differences, the Funks (and Terry in 75 worked a more technical style than he would do later from what I've seen), Brisco, Race and Flair all worked a certain style. They were "scientific" wrestlers. They were sold as tacticians. Even Brisco as a face was positioned and sold in that way. The point I was alluding to last night was that it was this reason that Ted was seen as a "logical" future champ by Muchnik and co. I don't think Patera quite fits that mould from what I've seen of him -- at least not without adaptation.

 

I don't know what your perception of "typical NWA champ" is, you're right. Maybe you think "good worker regardless of type" is the only criterion. Or maybe Patera was "scientific" and the him as a power guy came later in his career. I've said I'll look at the 1980s stuff soon to look at the empirical evidence.

[Dylan Waco]

I already have said what I think was required of an NWA champ a few times in the thread - bump/stooge/sell for often times limited challengers, while still being able to come out looking strong and credible. That was pretty much the name of peak Patera's game. I think offense is pretty much entirely irrelevant in terms of NWA champ style working. Working a bearhug (which I've seen Harley and even Ric do) or a full nelson is really no different then working any other hold in the sense that they are there to milk/build heat.

[soup23]

What about the hypothetical of Stemboat getting a title shot, using some heel tendency tactics to win the title, vacating the tag straps, having a short feud with Youngblood that he wins to solidfy himself as the champion, and then moving onto the Flair Starrcade 83 build?

 

It seems highly unlikely he would turn heel at that point, but I think if he was on board and they could make it work, it could have been very sucessful and you would have the linked histories of Flair vs. Steamboat.

[Al]

The Flair title loss was within a month of the Final Conflict cage match. That's a bad time to turn Steamboat. (There's never a good time, but this would've been particularly bad timing.)

 

As far as Patera as the ideal NWA champion. It would've been bad foresight to pass on a good choice as champion because he didn't fit a particular preconception. If the guy has a different style but it works, why wouldn't you run with it?

[soup23]

I may have pushed back Flair's title loss to late May or so but I kind of sensed in my theory something along the lines of Barry turning in 1988. Not as obtuse as him joining the horseman per say, but along those lines. It wouldn't be my first choice (Race) or 2nd and 3rd (Brisco and T. Funk), but after those three I do think it was an interesting option where Steamboat does check off some of the requirements.

[JerryvonKramer]

If Steamboat is too goody two-shoes to turn, what about turning Yougnblood? Those two would have been hot coming off the Final Conflict feud. What could create a bigger heel than Youngblood stabbing his partner in the back? The "bad timing" can be turned into a virtue. Creating one mega face and one mega heel.

 

Let's say the NWA board decide that Steamboat is number #1 contender for the title (while still tag champ), it's Steamboat vs. Flair, face vs. face. Youngblood gets jealous and screws his partner out of the title and puts him out with an injury. They are stripped of the tag titles because of the 30-day rule and no all of a sudden Youngblood is the new number #1 contender. Could do the same thing with Steamboat turning, of course, but it's really hard to imagine heel Steamboat.

[khawk20]

Youngblood would have had zero credibility as a singles heel, no matter how they built it.

[KrisZ]

Another positive for Flair in 1981 was months before he got the title he was a part owner of a territory which if you had skin in the NWA game that always helped.

[jdw]

Alright... let's try to sift through this mess...

 

One little thing from last night I'm not willing to let go because it rankles with me. Both Dylan and jdw did it and I must pull them up on it.

 

Let's say Backlund didn't get his title win in 94, anyone on here would be laughed off the board for suggesting it as even a remote possibility.

 

My point with Ivan is only that it might have been an option in certain conditions. That's all.

Backlund had the belt for what, a day or two? It's not even close to the same thing.

 

Let's say Backlund didn't get his title win in 94, anyone on here would be laughed off the board for suggesting it as even a remote possibility.

The point of Backlund winning the title was to instantly get the belt off the WWF's top face (Bret) and hand it a couple of days later to someone Vince wanted to be the new top face (Nash), without:

 

* having to do Bret vs Nash at that point (save it to pop the Rumble)

* having to job Bret to Nash (which Vince didn't do)

* having the belt on Backlund for long (fewer fingers than are on a hand)

 

That's not remotely the same thing as headlining Starcade with Flair-Ivan.

 

 

Was that what I was trying to argue with that example? Let me write it down what I was saying in logical form so you can follow each step of the argument:

 

Premise 1: Very strange things happen in wrestling [for example, Backlund in 94, for example, David Arquette, for example, Gene Okerlund had a match, for example ANY STRANGE THING THAT HAPPENED -- the example is illustraitive not necessary]

 

Backlund bring a short bridge heel champion from one WWF Face Champion to another WWF Face Champion isn't a strange thing. You do understand the WWWF/WWF history that Vince grew up in and then took over, right? Vince saw this happen a lot. I don't think I need to point them out to you.

 

They're not the same thing as Arquette or Okerlund.

 

So premise 1 is a poor starting point.

 

 

Premise 2: Very strange things that have happened in wrestling that couldn't be have been predicted through studying the context.

I'm not entirely sure what this premise has to do with your Ivan winning the NWA Title from Flair in 1983 to then defend the title against Flair at Starcade 1983. When you first went off on this Ivan Theory, you didn't present it as a Strange Thing but instead as a Good Alternative Plan To Race That Would Work! In other words, Ivan would go around the horn and draw as NWA Champ, and the fans would pack arenas around the JCP territory to watch Flair fight to get the title back from him. You weren't presenting "strange": your were presenting "good idea".

 

What happened is that a number of us rather gently said:

 

"That's a pretty batshit crazy idea."

 

So you've now morphed it into a Strange Thing rather than a Good Alternative Plan To Race That Would Work!

 

And you wonder why some of us have our heads spin in these discussions with you?

 

 

Conclusion 1: Therefore, anything is possible in wrestling, and anything is on the table.

Conclusion 2: Therefore, give me a bloody break about Ivan.

"I think Stephanie could win the WWF title at the Rumble and defend the title against Shane and it would set an all-time PPV record!"

 

"You're fucking crazy."

 

"What are you talking about? Anything is possible in wrestling, so this really could set an all-time record. Give me a bloody break about Ivan."

 

"No... seriously... you're totally fucking crazy. Gone 'round the bend. Funny farm. Men in white suits. Cuckoo for Cocoa Puff. Off your fucking meds."

 

 

As you can see this is not an argument from analogy. At no stage in that argument am I saying that Ivan in 83 = Backlund in 94. Yet, that's the argument you are both countering there. Backlund in 94 wasn't the important point, it was an example of "something very strange" happening. Why did you seize on it in that way? Why did you make the inference that I was trying to say that they were THE SAME?

"Benoit killing Nancy, Daniel and himself is something very strange. I'm telling you... Hogan on Wednesday may shoot up a Taco Bell!"

 

"Oh for fucks sake..."

 

"What? Anything is possible in wrestling - strange things happen! Give me a bloody break about Hogan going postal."

 

"No... if you keep this crazy talk up, the rest of us on this board are going to go postal."

 

 

Not accusing you of Bad Faith, but asking you to follow the argument and counter appropriately rather than this knee-jerk "must prove wrong with FACTS" response that has the sideeffect of putting me in a position of saying something I never said. To anyone just skimming this now and reading your posts there it looks like I was trying to say that Ivan 83 = Backlund 94. That's not fair. I don't want to be misrepresented.

"Look... I wasn't really saying Hogan would shoot up a Taco Bell when I said Hogan would shoot up a Taco Bell. Don't misrepresent me!"

 

"Oh dear god..."

 

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

 

One thing more. The point about trying to prove Patera in 81 was more likely in Ivan in 83 was conceded here:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5546449

 

Look at the time stamp.

I'm sorry, but that's doesn't look like a concession at all, certainly not one tying Patera to Ivan. I'm not even sure you concede the Ivan in 1983 point since 53 minutes later you were still arguing with Dylan about it.

 

 

23 minutes later, jdw posted this:

 

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=5546452

 

A massive post trying to demonstrate a point I'd already conceded.

 

Why this overkill?

Pick one of two reasons:

 

* I was working on the response while you posted your "concession"

 

* you didn't really conceed the point

 

I'm mean for fuck's sake, you're making this post the next day where the top half if still defending the utter nonsense of the Ivan Theory that you're claiming you conceded yesterday.

 

This is as internally consistent as arguing with Dave Scherer.

 

 

Finally, I am still sceptical about Patera being NWA champ. Very sceptical. Nothing about his work in AWA suggests to me that he would have fit that role. Although my early WWF project (79-83) is touted for later in the year, this debate has prompted some pre-emptive action:

I'm sorry... but I damn near spit out my Diet Mt Dew all over my monitor when reading that. Good lord...

 

This is on his set:

 

01-21 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

03-24 Andre The Giant & Pat Patterson vs Bobby Duncum & Ken Patera (MSG)

04-21 Pat Patterson vs Ken Patera IC Title (MSG)

05-19 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (MSG)

07-26 Bob Backlund vs Ken Patera WWF Title (Spectrum)

08-09 Ken Patera vs Tony Atlas IC Title (Shea)

08-23 Ken Patera vs Gorilla Monsoon (Spectrum)

10-20 Ken Patera vs Pedro Morales IC Title (MSG)

12-29 Ken Patera vs Pat Patterson (MSG)

 

Make sure to also watch this:

 

11/08/80 Ken Patera vs Bruno Sammartino

 

Which is useful as a comp to the very heated Bruno vs Larry matches from early in the year.

Since I have these matches, why not I'll give them a watch in the next couple of weeks in the Microscope. Anyone else unfamiliar with Patera from 1980 can join me if they wish. Under evaluation will not only be Patera as a worker in general, but also the claim made by Dylan and jdw in this thread that Patera was in fact an NWA-champ style worker in 1980. If he was, I'll be the first to say so. My scepticism stems from the fact that workers don't often make a wholesale change in their style in the space of a couple of years.

 

I'm guessing that you just don't understand what NWA Champ-style means. You think it's how Ric Flair works, period. Some of us have talked about how Lou Thesz was working NWA Champ-style... and that doesn't mean he was working exactly like Ric Flair.

 

I mean... for fuck's sake, this is insanity, man.

[jdw]

If you gave me a choice between Funk and Race in 1983, I'd honestly take Race. Funk would've been a more exciting champion. But I think Flair beating Race meant more.

 

It's worth noting for storyline purposes as well that Flair didn't beat Race for championship #1. He beat Dusty Rhodes.

I agree with this generally. I also hit on some of the issues with Funk earlier: All Japan commitments, "retirement", quite removed from being Champ, an how he was thought of by NWA Promoters relative to Race. We also haven't noted that there was impact on Race winning #7 to top Lou, which was a but of a Fuck You aimed at Lou, but also at the time historically significant. It did give Race a certain air.

 

My earlier point was: Terry would have been a ton of fun. He could have run the Bounty Hunter storyline. Terry vs Flair in the cage probably would have been a hell of a lot better match. All those mic spots would have been awesome.

[JerryvonKramer]

Youngblood would have had zero credibility as a singles heel, no matter how they built it.

I might start a blog for the worst booking ideas of all time, see if I can run the entire NWA out of business before Starrcade 84. Jay Youngblood vs Ivan main event

[jdw]

Three things

 

1. It's a worthless argument. Yes anything can and could happen in the abstract. For example I could have a fifty inch cock with wings attached to it that I use to fly to Jupiter six times a day. How likely is this? Not very likely. Arguing that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN is an argument has absolutely no value to a discussion, but in general I would be willing to "give you a break on Uncle Ivan" if that were solely what we were arguing about. But it's not. You were arguing the ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN principle as an argument in favor of Ivan in 83 v. Patera in 81. And that strikes me as a pretty desperate argument.

Damnit! 50 inch cocks with wings... how in the hell did I not think of that one. Crap, Dylan... you're not suppose to beat me to the punch like that!

 

 

 

2. Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt and you weren't just tossing out something random for no reason to "prove" some point about how literally anything is possible in the abstract. Well okay. That means even if you didn't mean it as a direct analogy, you damn sure had to have thought they were worth comparing on some level. But the purposes of what we have been talking about in the thread there is really no comparison that makes referencing it relevant - "Anything is possible in wrestling, Backlund won a world title in 94!" is a meaningless and odd argument to make in this thread. "Strange things happen in wrestling with world titles because Bob Backlund had a two day reign at the low point in WWF history, which was a short transition run from one performer to another, which in turn means Ivan Kollof - who was employed by another wrestling organization - would have been theoretically on the radar to be a traveling NWA champion in 1983, used for the purpose of setting up a huge "passing the torch" moment at the biggest Crockett show in history to Ric Flair" is a pretty big leap. It's not just that the two things aren't exactly the same, or even close to the same. It's that there is really no reason to bring up one in a discussion of the other, unless it was an odd choice to make the worthless ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN abstract argument or....

And that is more elegantly put than mine.

[JerryvonKramer]

Jdw, can you find me anywhere in this thread where I presented it as a GOOD idea? I've consistently said it would have been terrible.

 

As it happens a central premise of mine, that Ivan was "there" in the Crockett locker room simply wasn't true because he was in WWF. I thought, mistakenly, that he was at JCP in 83.

[jdw]

I already have said what I think was required of an NWA champ a few times in the thread - bump/stooge/sell for often times limited challengers, while still being able to come out looking strong and credible. That was pretty much the name of peak Patera's game. I think offense is pretty much entirely irrelevant in terms of NWA champ style working. Working a bearhug (which I've seen Harley and even Ric do) or a full nelson is really no different then working any other hold in the sense that they are there to milk/build heat.

This.

 

It's not like Harley or Ric were great workers of holds. They just filled space.

 

Patera worked longer hold segments with Backlund. He worked more brawling with Bruno. His match with Patterson was different from his match with Atlas. He adjusted to opponents, which no doubt was something he grasped from working in Mid Atlantic for two years before that.

[jdw]

If Steamboat is too goody two-shoes to turn, what about turning Yougnblood? Those two would have been hot coming off the Final Conflict feud. What could create a bigger heel than Youngblood stabbing his partner in the back? The "bad timing" can be turned into a virtue. Creating one mega face and one mega heel.

 

Let's say the NWA board decide that Steamboat is number #1 contender for the title (while still tag champ), it's Steamboat vs. Flair, face vs. face. Youngblood gets jealous and screws his partner out of the title and puts him out with an injury. They are stripped of the tag titles because of the 30-day rule and no all of a sudden Youngblood is the new number #1 contender. Could do the same thing with Steamboat turning, of course, but it's really hard to imagine heel Steamboat.

Why?

 

Coming off Final Conflict, JCP came up with three storylines that would run through Starcade:

 

* Flair drops the title and regains it at Starcade

* Briscos go heel as new opponent for Steamboat & Youngblood

* Valentine vs Piper blood feud over US title

 

Since the NWA Champ travels outside the territory (and Flair to a degree before the Bounty Hunter Angle), it means you need anchor programs in the territory. That's what those Tag Title and US feuds were. Then, after the Bounty Hunger Angle, they were able to add Flair to the cards against the Bounty Hunters while Race continue to make the NWA Champ commitments outside of JCP. Which gave them three feuds to anchor their cards:

 

* Flair drops the title and regains it at Starcade

* Briscos go heel as new opponent for Steamboat & Youngblood

* Valentine vs Piper blood feud over US title

 

Setting aside other feuds they had going on in the territory over things like the MA Title, MA TT and TV Title along with various other things.

 

Why in the hell would anyone want to take a good storyline like Briscos vs Steamer & Youngblood and fuck it up by pushing Steamer & Youngblood into an NWA Title feud where you already can come up with a dunker like Flair-Race? While hoping the mediocre Youngblood could pull off a heel turn to somehow main event Starcade agains Flair?

 

Starcard '83 WORKED. Not just the main event (though it was the key), but the card as a whole. Why are we wasting time trying to rebook the thing.

 

I get the concept of pondering who might have fit into Race's spot, similar to pondering who might have fit into Andre's spot at Mania III if his health went to shit. But mucking up a good feud like the Briscos turning? That's a waste.

[Bix]

Jerry, I'm going to put this as nicely as possible:

 

You keep arguing with people about stuff they tend to know much better than you and get indignant when called out on it. I think it's great that you're trying to watch as much older wrestling as you can and want to participate in discussions here. I really do. But you're basing your theories on random conjecture that you've come up with from watching old matches devoid of much context. Please read as much good historical stuff (Observer features, some of the better books like Bret's, Gary Hart's if you can find it, Stampede book, St. Louis book, all of the Greg Oliver/Steve Johnson books, etc) as you can to figure out how all of this fits together before you start throwing random theories at us and defending them for seemingly no reason other than that they're your theories.

 

How the (W)WWF picked champions is from a completely different booking philosophy from how the NWA board picked champions and how various bookers (at the time Dory Funk Jr. assisted by Gary Hart, Ernie Ladd, & Wahoo McDaniel) booked Jim Crockett Promotions.

 

Weekly and biweekly house show territories (most of them) worked a lot differently from monthly house show territories like the (W)WWF and AWA.

 

Superdome Spectacular shows are not a great indication of how Mid-South was doing as a whole or even how the regular weekly New Orleans shows did.

 

And so on.

 

If you have questions than, again, that's great. Ask away. But please, please try to learn about the context of everything we're discussing before you start coming up with seemingly random theories. It's getting really frustrating to deal with.

[jdw]

Jdw, can you find me anywhere in this thread where I presented it as a GOOD idea? I've consistently said it would have been terrible.

Wait... what the fuck?

 

Here was your first post on Ivan in 1983, after first being told that Dusty in 1983 wouldn't work:

 

In that case, for the time being, I will offer the name Ivan Koloff, the man who defeated Bruno. He was around and still positioned quite highly on the Crockett roster.

 

Fewer complications than securing Hansen, DiBiase or Jack Brisco at that point. Sets things up for Nikita's debut too.

Your second post on Ivan:

 

There is a massive difference between 81 and 83. 83 I think Race or Jack are the only real options. If for some reason they decided not to go with former NWA champ I think Ivan is a poor choice for a bunch of reasons I will cover later if pressed (at work). Valentine would be the best option in that unlikely scenario as he had previous history with Flair and had long time value in MACW.

 

81 there are many viable options. I think there Patera is the best pick though I'm biased. Again I can explain in detail later if pressed

I don't think Ivan is a great choice, I was just saying realistically he was RIGHT THERE and in wrestling sometimes it happens that they'll go with convenience rather than what is the best choice.

 

You will likely not agree at all, but I think Ivan in 83 had a more realistic chance of happening than Patera in 81.

 

If Ivan did get the title, I don't think it would have been in June but likely later. More of a 30-60-day sort of reign. Granted, that would have been a shockingly shit main event for the first Starrcade, but they could have built it up in various ways. NWA vs. old WWWF, USA vs. USSR etc. etc. Plus Nikita is around the corner.

 

I'm not saying it's a great scenario, but if Race wasn't there I can see them looking at it as a possibility.

 

You thought it was a good idea if Race wasn't there.

 

The claim that you consistently said it would have been terrible is a canard. A cover up. A crock. Deceit. Dishonesty. A dodge. Double-talk. A fable. A fabrication. A falsehood. A fib. Pure fiction. A flip-flop. A fraud. Inaccurate. You're giving us the run around. It's jive. A misstatement. A total myth. Subterfuge. A tall tale. An untruth. A whopper. Telling a yarn.

 

You're being a weasel.

 

Yep... it's a lie.

 

Did I miss any?

 

 

As it happens a central premise of mine, that Ivan was "there" in the Crockett locker room simply wasn't true because he was in WWF. I thought, mistakenly, that he was at JCP in 83.

We can't help it that something you originally thought was a good idea could not happen because you were wrong.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

If you gave me a choice between Funk and Race in 1983, I'd honestly take Race. Funk would've been a more exciting champion. But I think Flair beating Race meant more.

 

It's worth noting for storyline purposes as well that Flair didn't beat Race for championship #1. He beat Dusty Rhodes.

I agree with this generally. I also hit on some of the issues with Funk earlier: All Japan commitments, "retirement", quite removed from being Champ, an how he was thought of by NWA Promoters relative to Race. We also haven't noted that there was impact on Race winning #7 to top Lou, which was a but of a Fuck You aimed at Lou, but also at the time historically significant. It did give Race a certain air.

 

My earlier point was: Terry would have been a ton of fun. He could have run the Bounty Hunter storyline. Terry vs Flair in the cage probably would have been a hell of a lot better match. All those mic spots would have been awesome.

 

Of course we now have the benefit of hindsight, and I see the point about Flair beating Race being very meaningful, but wouldn't the unpredictability and the unknown of Funk have been a better fit for the changing wrestling world?

 

I get that Funk probably wasn't realistic due to Japan commitments and "retiring," but let's pretend that wasn't a factor. To me, Funk cheating to beat Flair in a wild brawl to win the title sets up a nice run where you can build the feud through great promos, the same bounty hunter angle done better by the crazed Funk, and enough good matches around the horn that end in a DQ or countout to make people want to the see the payoff in a big show.

 

Yeah, Funk's reign came in the mid 70s, and he may not have been as well-known around the horn as Harley, but he wasn't old news. He was still plenty recognizable. Bringing him in and upping the crazy probably would have injected some new life into his character. "Hey, I remember that crazy guy. And now he's even crazier! And he's trying to kill poor Ric Flair!"

 

To me, Funk brings the excitement and you-gotta-see-this-guy factor much more than Harley. I think that the changing wrestling world of that time period would have preferred to see that over the standard younger guy finally knocks off the older guy angle.

 

But like I said, hindsight is 20/20, and Starrcade did good business, so it is hard to argue with the Harley choice. I just think Funk would've been a risk worth taking, if it could've been pulled off logistically.

 

EDIT: I just re-read this and realized that this scenario is actually another Back to the Future sequel that focuses on the NWA in 1989 and 1983, minus the title change.

[jdw]

In hindsight and simply looking at it as a fan and what I would like to watch on tape, I would enjoy seeing Terry in that roll. It would be a ton of fun.

 

I just have to acknowledge that there were several reasons why it might have been tough to put it together at the time.

 

As a Fan:

1. Terry

2. Race

3. gets thin fast

 

The reason it gets thin is that even as a fan, I have to be realistic about whether it would work.

 

As a Promoter / Booker / NWA Board member

1. Race

2. Terry

3. gets thin

 

As a booker/promoter, Race is safe to suggest. He'll draw for Starcade. It has a built in storyline of Flair not beating him for the title. One can come up with additional story to support it (as they did with the Bounty Hunters). The rest of the Board and NWA Promoters will probably go with Harley more than Terry. "Safe" which will deliver.

 

But... but... but...

 

I might feel out the rest of the Board on Terry. Would they be interested in him? Since his only main tie is to All Japan, and in those days gaijin didn't tend to work every series, he'd have a lot of "off time" after dropping the World Title. Promoters might like that a lot: Terry could do something dastardly in their territory as champ, screwing over the Local Hero. After Terry drops the title back to Flair, Local Promoters have two things to run:

 

* Terry vs Local Hero where Local Hero gets revenge

* another shot at Flair

 

Terry could do some decent business in a number of territories after dropping the title.

 

John