Pat Patterson and Ray Stevens Fightin' Words

[jdw]

5. Top 2 or 3 might be overstating it. I can see him in the top 10 70 's style worker .

Don't know. I'm not sure we have a great survey of stuff of 70s style workers when it comes to available stuff.

 

 

 

 

Agreed their isn't enough out there. I'd say Destroyer, Brisco, T. Funk,Jumbo, Robinson,Bock, Rose, Murdoch, Patterson, O'Connor, Lawler. Plus the luchadores that people short shrift all the time. Plenty of guys on the tail end of the 70's . It's an argument that could be on a loop.

 

All really good workers. Just a limited amount of tape covering a lot of territories. Or getting lucky/unlucky on who worked in Japan and their stuff made tape.

[shoe]

I bet though if we put Bob's best 10 matches up there they go 20+. Be honest and try it. I'm going to. His style of wrestling was better long.

20+ is different from 20-30 that you mentioned earlier. I think his best match is the 07/27/78 draw with Inoki. It goes 60, so I don't think of it as a 20-30 match.

 

That was kind of my point: "Never really put Bob in a box on match length."

 

He has a lot of good matches that are in that 20-30 length. He has some that go quite a bit longer, like the second draw with Inoki and the draw with Valentine. Some shorter, like the last two on your list that are 13 minute matches. The Bob-Sarge would be in my Top 10, and that's 16 as I mentioned. Dittos the two best Hansen matches.

 

I don't think length was the problem with the two poor Bob-Pat matches in Philly. It was largely that Pat didn't seem to want to work very much. He did in the best available MSG match. Maybe Pat throught, "I've got 10 less minuted here in Philly, might as well do less in this one." But that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

 

I might have misspoke. My point here is that I think Bob is suited and his style gets over in a longer match. I usually consider 20+ as going long. 25 + would probably be more fair. I'm also a big fan of the Inoki match from Miami that goes around 28 that I didn't list.Yes Bob had matches that don't go long that are good. I just feel his better matches go longer than 20 minutes.

[shoe]

Plus with the shorter Pat/Bob matches they seem to be building to something and the match just ends. It's like a 4 act play that ends in the 2nd act.

[MikeCampbell]

Another plus in the Stevens column: Bruno Sammartino says that Stevens was so good that he's one of a very few that he'd allow to call an entire match, and just follow along.

[khawk20]

Another plus in the Stevens column: Bruno Sammartino says that Stevens was so good that he's one of a very few that he'd allow to call an entire match, and just follow along.

If Bruno isn't B.S.ing, that's impressive.

[ohtani's jacket]

Man, the Dibiase/Patterson matches I just watched were underwhelming to say the least. I can't believe we lost Brick over sub 10 minute past-his-prime Pat Patterson. And what's with his Australian sounding lisp? I'm not feeling this MVP stuff, but more power to your podcast.

[shoe]

Man, the Dibiase/Patterson matches I just watched were underwhelming to say the least. I can't believe we lost Brick over sub 10 minute past-his-prime Pat Patterson. And what's with his Australian sounding lisp? I'm not feeling this MVP stuff, but more power to your podcast.

 

See I really liked the Patterson/Dibiase matches except the last one which I agree was underwhelming. I thought they were all good meat and potatoes matches. Dibiase shows lots of fire in them. They are laid out and easy to follow. I'm a guy who likes limb work and we get it in spades. I thought Patterson was great in his role.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think matches from this period and promotion suffer more than usual when watched out of context. I can't really explain why.

[shoe]

Also on the MVP front from 1979 in the WWF their really aren't a lot of picks. So saying Patterson is MVP of the promotion isn't some grandiose statement. In 1979 their are 3 clear MVP candidates that aren't mgrs. They are Patterson,Valentine, and Backlund. OJ you seemed pretty dismissive of Patterson can you give me an alternative ? I'm curious on your thoughts.

[ohtani's jacket]

I haven't seen enough 1979 WWWF to rightly have an opinion on who the MVP was, but if we're talking about who I'd like to see more of, I'd take Valentine over Patterson in a heartbeat. Patterson looked old to me, and not in a "I can't believe this guy is still so good" kind of way. I only saw two of the matches but they followed along the same lines -- early brawling segment, ponderous armwork by Dibiase and brass knuckles finish. Some of Patterson's bumping was okay, but nothing out of this world. They're not really proper matches, just the equivalent of a throwaway TV bout. As Jerry says, I'm missing the context, but it's more a case of not seeing how Patterson was the MVP than feeling that he wasn't.

[shoe]

OJ the context is real important here. I'm glad you are willing to look at that with an open mind . All 4 of us on the pod picked him as our 79 MVP. Backlund was the best worker in my opinion . Though he had his share of stinkers . I thought Pat and Valentine were the most consistent in the ring . I thought Patterson was really fun on the mike. My preconceived notion was he was going to suck. Backlund was horrible on the stick. Valentine was solid. When it was all said and done I went with Pat.

[jdw]

Plus with the shorter Pat/Bob matches they seem to be building to something and the match just ends. It's like a 4 act play that ends in the 2nd act.

Have to watch them again. Don't recall getting that vibe, and instead the oft repeated stuff about Pat laying around. With the Bob-Hansen cage match, that was one that really felt like it wasn't even half done... and then Bob walks out of the cage after nothing. Probably so frustrated with Pat's work that it ending worked for me. :/

 

Bob did have a number of matches that just picked up and went home... though I think some of them were among the 20+ matches. Bob vs Arab felt like that. Perhaps more like 2 acts, skip the 3rd, and have a short 4th that wraps everything up without having a lot to do with what came before. Haven't watched that one in ages...

 

Some of that was stylistic, as longer runs to the finish is something we think of. Eh.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'd also say that there is no way in hell you could accuse us of group-think since we disagree about a hell of a lot of stuff and regularly.

 

What I will say though is that I think the baseline standard of WWF in 1979 isn't exactly through the roof. Patterson is standing out on cards with guys like Bob Duncum, Swede Hanson, The Wild Samoans, Baron Scucluna and other guys of that ilk. Now while I'm probably in the top 1 percentile of guys in the world reasonably high on Dominic Denucci, there is a sense in which he and all of these other guys are making Patterson look super in comparison. I want to say that Patterson is light years ahead of most of those guys. He stands out because he's doing a lot of bumping and character work at a time when a lot of guys were lying around on the mat or doing very basic punch-y kick-y stuff.

 

That sounds like I'm down on the period, I don't want to come across like that because it is under-appreciated, under-watched and subject to a lot of preconceptions that simply aren't true. But, viewed in context, Patterson seems like he's from another planet.

 

Also, I think DiBiase's performance in the FIRST of the Patterson matches is very good (one thing we've found is the law of diminishing returns at MSG or Spectrum: often 1st match is great, 2nd one not as good, 3rd one disappointing -- often but not always). He is very fired up and works with real focus and intensity. The multiple kneedrops on the arm, for example, are brutal. Again, if you've come off watching peak All Japan or a bunch of cool Lucha or something, that sort of thing isn't going to seem like much, but DiBiase stood out to me as a guy who was really switching up the gears in terms of pace and intensity compared to everything else that was going on.

 

That match is around the ***1/2 sort of level for me, I have the Patera-Patterson match from April 1980 around there too. But ***1/2 in this environment is not to be sniffed at. Hope that makes sense.

[Dylan Waco]

I watched some late 70's WWWF not too terribly long ago and came away really liking the expressive nature of Pat's selling and bumping. He is one of a relatively small number of guys I can think of who used every inch of his body when receiving impact, almost doing this bizarre body tremble, that somehow didn't look phony. Offhand the only guys I can think of who did anything similar were Larry Zbyszko and Buddy Landell, though I'm sure I am forgetting some.

 

I also agree with the point that generally speaking Backlund works better long.

[shoe]

By other guys of that ilk Parv is referring to Nikolai Volkoff from Mongolia, Chief Strongbow. These guys are mediocre at best.

[shoe]

Another thing to look at when it comes to Pat is that he got 4 shots against Bob in the Garden. Most people don't get 4 shots . He's obviously a good enough worker to headline the Garden . Usually they get 2 or 3. So their must have been enough trust in him as a worker to draw 4 times with the champ.

[shoe]

Since Patterson isn't considered an all time great draw at MSG I would believe he got the shots because the company believed in his worth as a worker.

[Matt D]

One thing with Stevens is that even in the Stevens we have, it's after his injury (in 69 I think; he hurt himself both in 62 and 69 doing non wrestling things, though not at the hands of Jerry Calhoun) and Meltzer has said that he was never quite the same after that.

[shoe]

I hear ya. Just to me the footage that is out their of Stevens doesn't even suggest that he had a good mind, his timing never seems all that great. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a spectacular worker who needed a good worker to reign him in. I picture a 60's version of Kurt Angle. Is that a fair assumption on my part maybe not. The fact of the matter is the footage isn't there to evaluate ourselves.

[shoe]

It also says something that Stevens two famous partners are Bock and Patterson who has shown have incredible minds for telling a story .They easily could have been laying out a match to highlight Stevens strengths. Again this is pure conjecture on my part .

[El-P]

It's impossible to know one way or another. Watch Yoshiaki Yatsu in 1989. You can never guess he was a great worker back in 1986. We'll never know about Stevens without footage, it's as simple as that.

[Matt D]

I hear ya. Just to me the footage that is out their of Stevens doesn't even suggest that he had a good mind, his timing never seems all that great. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a spectacular worker who needed a good worker to reign him in. I picture a 60's version of Kurt Angle. Is that a fair assumption on my part maybe not. The fact of the matter is the footage isn't there to evaluate ourselves.

I am the only person on this board that has the talking point that athleticism can be a crutch and it's much more interesting to see a wrestler at 50 than at 30 when they really have to rely on craft and pick their spots very carefully and you can really tell if they "get it" or not, so I don't disagree with you. I just read that yesterday and thought it was worth noting.

 

Also, since people would probably be interested, I did find this yesterday: http://www.irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic....492b0110e88d7df

 

It's the WON obit of Stevens, from 96, I think, and has a NSFW sig picture at the bottom, just as a warning.

[shoe]

It's impossible to know one way or another. Watch Yoshiaki Yatsu in 1989. You can never guess he was a great worker back in 1986. We'll never know about Stevens without footage, it's as simple as that.

 

That's what I said. Plus my comparisons that I made I did say it was pure conjecture on my part.

[jdw]

I'd also say that there is no way in hell you could accuse us of group-think since we disagree about a hell of a lot of stuff and regularly.

I don't think anyone accused anyone of group-think.

[jdw]

Another thing to look at when it comes to Pat is that he got 4 shots against Bob in the Garden. Most people don't get 4 shots . He's obviously a good enough worker to headline the Garden . Usually they get 2 or 3. So their must have been enough trust in him as a worker to draw 4 times with the champ.

 

Since Patterson isn't considered an all time great draw at MSG I would believe he got the shots because the company believed in his worth as a worker.

Two separate things:

 

First, I don't think "worker" in the sense that any of us use it really matter to the WWWF/WWF Braintrust on who got 1 shot, 2 shots or 3 shots at the main against Bruno, Pedro or Bob as champs.

 

Example: Peter Maivia got 3 matches against Backlund. I don't think anyone making decisions in the WWWF/WWF at the time thought Maivia was a great worker like we did. Instead, he had a "great angle" turning on, and was one hot in their minds from a drawing standpoint to run to 3 matches. We all probably think Bob Orton was a better worker than Maivia. Bob got just 1 match at MSG vs Bob. So too did Buddy Rose, though both got 2 at the Spectrum.

 

So it's unlikely how we think of the word "worker" had much to do with Pat getting even 1 title shot, let alone 4.

 

Second, we've talked in the past that the 4 shots is odd, and not really well explained in history. Hotter programs didn't get a 4th straight match, not even Bruno-Larry the following year or Bruno-Superstar or Bob-Superstar in prior years. 1979 is a bit odd in how challengers booked ended Patterson at MSG and the Spectrum. The two Valiant Brother matches in Philly were unusal for how the booked Backlund. The battle royal challenger was more than a bit odd, especially when looking at the talent involved. One does get the sense that whatever they had in mind when blocking out things earlier in the year didn't come to pass, and they slapped a few things together. One of them was stretching Bob-Pat to a 4th match in MSG.

 

It's certainly a credit to Pat that he could headline four straight challenges and there's no urban legend out there of the 4th bombing because people were tired of it. The heat was there for the 4th one.

 

Anyway... I think he got the shots originally for the same reason the majority of challengers in that era did: Vince Sr. & Co. thought he could draw. That it went to the rate 3 challenges is a sign that it did in fact draw, and that there were some legs there. That it went to the unique 4... that one was odd. Though it was an odd year in the WWF for challengers.