Jumbo Tsuruta

[...TG]

Does this hurt or help his case?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDk3CEnzUs

I don't see how the most wonderful thing I've ever seen could possibly hurt his case.

[JerryvonKramer]

Holy shit.

 

One of the greatest things in wrestling history!

[GOTNW]

Jumbo will rank somewhere in the upper half of my list. He had an incredible peak but I'm ambivalent about his career outside of it and honestly the more I watch of him the less enamored I am with him.

[ohtani's jacket]

I watched a 1975 Funks vs. Jumbo/Baba tag with the express intent of judging whether Jumbo was one of the "best in the world" in 1975. Then I started wondering how you can prove or disprove that sort of statement. You can't really, so instead I decided to focus on how good I thought Jumbo was with only a couple of years under his belt. The impression I got was that his execution was far smoother than most second or third year guys, but he wasn't overly confident in what he was doing and not the one calling the action. There wasn't much wrong with what he did mechanically, but he didn't strike me as great yet. You can always tell a less experienced worker/rookie by the way they're trying to follow the bout and Jumbo was still trying to follow and respond to the others here. On the other hand, he was better than the majority of wrestlers with the same level of experience. He just wasn't great. The match itself was okay. The Baba/Jumbo dynamic doesn't do much for me despite understanding it fairly well and the aggression from the Funks was fairly timid.

[DR Ackermann]

Today's the day. Jumbo is off my list. I watched the Jumbo/Martel AWA title switch and I think I've finally figured out what it is about Jumbo that makes me think he's just not very good. He's competent and he works hard, but he's kind of clueless. He's much too deliberate; not in a stylistic way, but in the sense that he's cautiously approaching everything, unsure of what he should do next, like he's looking to someone for direction. When there are preplanned spots it becomes blatantly obvious that he's moving into position or getting ready to set them up. He knows what works because he's been wrestling for so long, but it seems like he hasn't developed the appropriate instincts of why and when to do what works. It's not organic. He overreacts to things in a really hammy sort of way. He reminds me of a basketball player who practiced every part of the game to the point that he does things in a picture-perfect, textbook, way. When he goes out to actually play he gets destroyed by all the other players who learned by actually playing basketball with other people, not by simply practicing the individual aspects of the game out of context.

 

In the past I've begrudgingly given the guy credit, because while I don't like him, so many people think he's an all-time great. At this point I just don't see it and can't justify voting for someone I don't consider great.

[JerryvonKramer]

You can name 100 better workers than Bret Hart Jumbo?

[jdw]

I don't think anyone ever thought the title change was especially good/great. The Jumbo-Martel matches that people have long pimped are the 7/31/84 rematch in Tokyo and the 9/29/85 remain in St. Paul. The title change was the first time they'd ever worked together.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm just interested to know what happens when you get 70 deep, to see what sort of guys you are putting over Bret Jumbo and why. Not saying impossible, just interested.

[DR Ackermann]

Yes. I don't think Bret Hart will make my final list either. I have a working list of over a hundred guys in order that I have been adjusting slowly since September. I will check out the other Martel matches, but at this point it is such a chore watching a guy that I don't enjoy whatsoever (and yes, I am separating best from favorite).

[elliott]

He's competent and he works hard, but he's kind of clueless. He's much too deliberate; not in a stylistic way, but in the sense that he's cautiously approaching everything, unsure of what he should do next, like he's looking to someone for direction. When there are preplanned spots it becomes blatantly obvious that he's moving into position or getting ready to set them up. He knows what works because he's been wrestling for so long, but it seems like he hasn't developed the appropriate instincts of why and when to do what works. It's not organic. He overreacts to things in a really hammy sort of way. He reminds me of a basketball player who practiced every part of the game to the point that he does things in a picture-perfect, textbook, way. When he goes out to actually play he gets destroyed by all the other players who learned by actually playing basketball with other people, not by simply practicing the individual aspects of the game out of context.

 

I think this is interesting because of the disappointing series of matches (except one) against Stan Hansen when Hansen has said that his style was to go at people and see how they react.

 

Not sure I would agree with it (I like Jumbo) but reading that did make me go "hmm., that's interesting." Can you point to any glaring examples?

[JerryvonKramer]

Yes. I don't think Bret Hart will make my final list either. I have a working list of over a hundred guys in order that I have been adjusting slowly since September. I will check out the other Martel matches, but at this point it is such a chore watching a guy that I don't enjoy whatsoever (and yes, I am separating best from favorite).

I guess my real question is that if you are setting a bar where Bret, Jumbo and Martel are all not making your list, who on earth is? And what criteria do you use to get to the point where you get to 100?

 

Like just looking at your stock falling and rising lists from a couple of months back, what would be the basis of ranking a Gino Hernandez above any of those three guys? Or Brian Pillman?

 

You have Steamboat as a riser, which suggests he might make your list, to a lot of people he's a very similar sort of worker to Martel. What distinguishes them in your view?

 

None of this is intended as a a knock, just a little intrigued as to how you will get there. On the face of it, it seemed like you don't like big performers, but then Pillman, Gino and Steamer are all huge performers. Do you think any of them are demonstrably smarter as workers than a Bret, Jumbo or Martel?

[DR Ackermann]

There's some confusion there. I wa referring to Jumbo being a chore to watch. I will check out the other Jumbo/Martel matches. I think Martel was great and he will probably be in my top 50.

 

What do I see as determining greatness? I've thought a lot about it and it comes down mainly to the ability to create drama. That's why I value selling so much, but it isn't the only way to create it. Timing is important, bumping can make things feel bigger, consistency- not only in the way of having lots of good matches but being consistent with the logic inside of individual matches. If a guy is working holds, is there a point? Is it compelling? There's a ton of stuff that goes into creating drama. Being able to project a sense of struggle is something I value highly. There's so much more I could add but I'll stop there for now.

 

How well a wrestler plays particular roles is extremely important as well. Does he have a wide range or is he just awesome at one role, or is he very good at multiple, etc. etc.

 

Longevity and/or peak...blah blah blah. Was he ever bad, and for how long and why, how quickly did he develop, etc. etc.

 

To answer that last question, yes I do believe that every guy mentioned was a demonstrably smarter worker than Jumbo. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it and it would be disingenuous for me to say otherwise.

 

Bret Hart was a smart worker, but not as smart as people give him credit. He had all the opportunities in the world to do great stuff but he lacked, in my opinion, that little something. But actually it was a big something. There's just no emotion. It's like watching a robot go out and wrestle. He's like a synthesized drum beat or something, he's doing things technically right with perfect rhythm but it's soulless. Bockwinkel is the wrestler Bret Hart wishes he was.

 

Pillman is the inverse of Bret Hart in a lot of ways. Bad booking, undervalued, underappreciated, underrated. He brought a lot of character and emotion to what he did and was given relatively few opportunities to make his case. Before he got injured, he's consistently good on TV, as a face, as a heel, having great matches in a variety of styles, having great sub 10 minute matches. I look at Bret as a guy who had to sit down with a paper and pen beforehand to have a good match. That's not me knocking him for planning stuff out necessarily, but I believe if he was supposed to wrestle Doink the Clown and then 5 minutes before the match there was a change of plans and he was wrestling Jannetty instead we would get a really bland dog shit match.

[DR Ackermann]

 

He's competent and he works hard, but he's kind of clueless. He's much too deliberate; not in a stylistic way, but in the sense that he's cautiously approaching everything, unsure of what he should do next, like he's looking to someone for direction. When there are preplanned spots it becomes blatantly obvious that he's moving into position or getting ready to set them up. He knows what works because he's been wrestling for so long, but it seems like he hasn't developed the appropriate instincts of why and when to do what works. It's not organic. He overreacts to things in a really hammy sort of way. He reminds me of a basketball player who practiced every part of the game to the point that he does things in a picture-perfect, textbook, way. When he goes out to actually play he gets destroyed by all the other players who learned by actually playing basketball with other people, not by simply practicing the individual aspects of the game out of context.

 

I think this is interesting because of the disappointing series of matches (except one) against Stan Hansen when Hansen has said that his style was to go at people and see how they react.

 

Not sure I would agree with it (I like Jumbo) but reading that did make me go "hmm., that's interesting." Can you point to any glaring examples?

 

 

I've thought about that myself. I will...watch some Jumbo matches and get back to you, sigh. In the meantime I will say that I found the Misawa/Jumbo 1990 upset match pretty boring outside of the hot opening and closing which is something I could point to. Those sections of the match were laid out for a clear purpose. The body of the match was the blank canvas with a lot of opportunity and felt directionless. Just a 10-15 minute time killer because Misawa wasn't that good yet and Jumbo couldn't lead a match but he knew how to do stuff? Idk maybe.

[JerryvonKramer]

I was recently on a show where I made a case for Jumbo as 1, he also finished as consensus #1 in the 2006 Smarkschoice poll.

 

A huge part of the case I made for him was his resume of great matches. Which remain the ones I listed here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/28578-jumbo-tsuruta/?p=5665915

 

How many of those are not "great matches" to you?

 

I think I made the statement on that show that Jumbo must have great psychology because he has that huge list of great matches. How would you respond to a claim like that? Is there some hint of a suggestion that he's like a kind of ultimate Ultimate Warrior?

 

I could point to specific things, the double teaming with Fuchi during the 4/20/91 six man springs to mind off-hand. Or his trope of smashing a guy off the apron in tags, almost incidentally, as a "fuck you I'm the boss" statement. But I guess I'd want you to address the macro picture before the micro picture.

 

In other words, supposing all of these things you are saying about Jumbo are true, doesn't the big list of great matches and the monster run of facing great workers from 72 to 92 do anything to off-set the criticisms? Isn't that a plus in his favour over a guy like Pillman who had a much shorter run and for whatever reason did not get the breaks?

 

Like when I think about my list, a lot of people know I'm not huge on Backlund and he does lots of things that annoy me. But when I sit back, his six year run as champ in WWF produced a lot of good to very good matches against a wide variety of different guys. So I have to give the guy his due despite my personal misgivings.

 

How do you deal with that sort of thing?

[DR Ackermann]

I'll start off by saying that it blows my mind that people would consider hima #1 contender. I just don't see how people can view him that way. But lots of people do. I can understand people thinking he's really good even though I don't.

 

Tags in particular are a place where I think Jumbo's flaws are exposed and my criticisms of him given more weight. There are so many tags I've seen where he does the EXACT SAME THINGS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. He will tag in, hit 2 or 3 moves, body slam someone, do his knee attack, sometimes fist pump, sometimes not and tag out. Meanwhile the other 3 guys are building a narrative, building drama, doing things that will progress the match. He adds nothing, until it's time for the planned spots and shifts in the match, which he will do just fine. Part of that could be the way Japanese tags were structured, but he is always the least guy in those matches.

 

I see the majority of his great matches coming in the late 80s and the 90s and I haven't seen any Jumbo singles from the 90s I consider great. I can go through your whole list later, as I have seen most of those matches. You didn't mention the Terry Funk/Jumbo 76 match that people love. That's a match I don't like and I think Terry Funk is the GOAT. The only reason I had Jumbo on my list was the "huge number of great matches." But then I looked at it and realized I didn't think so many of them were that great and the ones that were I generally found his performances in them to be unfavorable or decent like a lot of those 6mans.

 

I don't think he's Ultimate Warrior. I think he's Terry Taylor with a long career on tape and some great opponents and opportunities. But really I don't think he's bad, just not that good. Warrior was bad. Maybe Jumbo's the most carryable guy in history? I just don't see him as the driving force in any match of his I've seen that was great. However, I think his matches with Tenryu after their split are tremendous for the most part and I would like to go back and see how much of that he deserves credit for.

[DR Ackermann]

Also, let me ask you this. Are you putting Stan Lane or Robert Gibson on your list? A decade of great matches from both guys.

[JerryvonKramer]

Very often in the All Japan tags,the role of ace is pretty clearly defined. I'd be interested to see if you'd draw the same criticisms against Misawa in the 90s and Giant Baba in the 70s.

 

How many of the 70s Jumbo tags have you seen vs. The Funks? Does he work the same way there as the junior partner? My list didn't include the two Billy Robinson matches (which I have at *****), do you think the things he does in those matches are of no consequence?

 

I'm interested to know if this is something you think is true of him for the whole of his career or just for late 80s / early 90s.

 

For your question:

 

Stan Lane - he has a chance of making my list, he was part of at least two legit great tag-teams in the Fabulous Ones and the Midnight Express. I have less interest in the Heavenly Bodies and doubt I will get to SMW stuff before the deadline, but could be persuaded to look for the sake of fleshing out the Lane case. On the whole, I think Lane gets a bit of an unfair rap. I feel like people pull him down to build Dennis Condrey up. I also think he's in there with one of the most naturally gifted workers of all time in Eaton, so the perception of being the second best guy in the team hurts him as well. But I think I'm higher on Lane than a lot of posters here.

 

Robert Gibson - virtually no chance. To me he's a jobber who got lucky and not much more. I have argued with no small amount of heat against my buddy Johnny and others about that in the past. I think Gibson was a nothing who was 90%+ carried by Morton. I probably got way more heat for dissing Gibson than you will get for your criticisms of Jumbo.

[DR Ackermann]

I haven't thought about that before, and now that you mention it, Misawa does wrestle similarly in tags once he becomes the ace. It's not exactly the same and I see him as a better worker but I think there's probably something to what you said. I will keep that in mind when watching.

[GOTNW]

I don't think Jumbo's role of the ace was played up in the 80s tags nearly as much as Misawa's was in the 90s tags nor was it essential to the quality of those matches like it was in the 90s.

[goc]

Robert Gibson - virtually no chance. To me he's a jobber who got lucky and not much more. I have argued with no small amount of heat against my buddy Johnny and others about that in the past. I think Gibson was a nothing who was 90%+ carried by Morton. I probably got way more heat for dissing Gibson than you will get for your criticisms of Jumbo.

Don't discount the idea that your "heat" for those kinds of things are less about the criticism and more the way you go about it. It's not like Dr. Ackermann is trying to totally tear down Jumbo and say he's dog shit, just that he doesn't see him as great as other people do whereas your Gibson criticism is vitriolic.

[ohtani's jacket]

So I watched the 1976 Rusher Kimura match, and despite the fact I'm skeptical of Jumbo being as good as the great 70s workers who had many more years experience, I do think it shows what a natural Jumbo was and how far he'd progressed in a few short years. It's by no means a great match, but already you can see a number of "Jumbo-isms" albeit in a more youthful context. It's weird seeing Kimura look like a smaller version of Hashimoto, but he's basically the same limited worker as the 80s version. Jumbo doesn't exactly defer to him, but he doesn't stamp his mark all over the match either. I'm sure Baba kept him under a tight leash, so he probably did what he was told at this point, but I think "Jumbo was one of the best young workers of the 70s" is a more apt description than Jumbo was already a top 10 worker. He looked better than most comparable young worker runs, but better than all but a handful of workers? It seems like a stretch.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am not including Kimura in his "variety" run.

 

Jumbo's 70s case is made basically vs. both Funks in singles and tags, vs. Robinson, vs. Brisco, vs. Race, vs. Baba, vs. Bock (79, Hawaii). If someone is not as high on those matches as I am, then the case falls a bit.

 

I think he's comfortably in top 10 70s workers WE HAVE ON TAPE. And based on my "Longevity of Peak" thing being "Top 30 in the world", I happily start him at 1973.

 

People can set their own parameters though.

[Matt D]

I got a kick out of the Mark Briscoe > Jumbo talk from last week's Exile, but it would have been even better if the talk about how good Bossman was that immediately followed it had been tied in.

[jdw]

I actually would include that Kimura match in pointing to Jumbo's work in the 70s. It's not a regular guy he worked with so that he could get all "smooth" with. This was just the second time they'd been in the ring together.

 

Their first time is also available: the 12/13/75 Open Championship league match. When I first watched it, I found it disappointing as it wasn't close to the level of the 03/28/76 match. That's one of the problems with Best Of or watching stuff out of order: you see some really good stuff first, then see some earlier stuff with an "expectation", and pretty much zone out on the fact the two had never been in the ring before and are booked into a short 9 minute match stuck in a League where there are other stories to be told.

 

Rusher will occasionally have a watchable match, usually along the lines of what's going on in the 1976 match: a "war" where they're kicking the crap out of each other. It's kind of telling that not one of his matches with Inoki made the DVDVR set. I found at least one of them to be decent and compelling, but, yeah... they're not super loved.

 

Another contrast would be Rusher in this series of Gagne matches in IWE:

 

11/13/79 Rusher Kimura vs Verne Gagne
11/14/79 Verne Gagne vs Ashura Hara
11/15/79 Verne Gagne vs Mighty Inoue

 

The Hara matches isn't any good, but the Rusher match struck me as even worse. Then Verne & Mighty have a pretty fun little match. Nothing off the charts, but Mighty at least is on the same page with Verne in doing some solid stuff. Rusher... not so much.

 

Anyway, I've always thought that Jumbo being able to have a very good intense match with Rusher as being one of his bigger props in the 70s.

[JerryvonKramer]

^ jdw, I did mention it on a recent podcast I did which *might* have been why OJ went to it. I like the match myself, and would cite it as a good example of him vs. "a lesser guy", but it is a borderline case for inclusion in the "variety" metric.