Buddy Rose

[Grimmas]

Discuss here.

[Loss]

Great worker. It's going to take some time for me to figure out my placement of him because I feel like I need a better grasp of how good he was compared to his peers in the same early 80s timeframe. An incredibly talented guy who I know I will rank, that's not a question. The question is where to rank him - I need to figure out from 1980-1984 how he compares to Fujinami, Flair, Funk, Hansen, Lawler, Bockwinkel, Jumbo, Choshu and so on to figure out where he'll fall.

 

Tremendous on the mat. The skill of his opponent is nearly a non-factor in how good his matches are, and I'm not sure how many guys I can truthfully say that for in wrestling history.

[Graham Crackers]

Here's somebody I will definitely be acquainting myself with before the end of this poll. At this point I've just seen his AWA stuff which I loved. I'm looking forward to the Portland 80s set and checking out some of his 70s matches as well.

[DR Ackermann]

Tremendous on the mat. The skill of his opponent is nearly a non-factor in how good his matches are, and I'm not sure how many guys I can truthfully say that for in wrestling history.

 

That is a great point. I haven't seen a lot of Rose yet, mainly just some of his stuff against scrubs in the late 70s, but they've been pretty good matches despite being with shit opponents. I'm looking forward to seeing his best work.

[goodhelmet]

A lock for my Top 20. Maybe might sneak past a few luchadors and into the Top Ten.

[WingedEagle]

Where to start with Rose? He has an extensive thread in the microscope but give me 2-3 good matches and 4-5 greats to check out.

[Dylan Waco]

Watch any singles matches with Martel, Hennig and Dynamite from Portland.

[WingedEagle]

Sounds good, any need to hit them in a particular order or just dive right in? Want to give myself a couple hours of him as an intro. Trying to jump around and hit a bunch of unfamiliar names before eventually going back and digging deeper where I want more.

[goodhelmet]

You can start anywhere but if he had a series of matches (Youngblood for example), start with the first match of the series.

[goc]

I have a ridiculous amount of 80s Portland that I haven't been able to really take a look at. But I did watch about 8 hours of 70s Portland a few months ago and what stood out the most about Buddy was the sub par talent he had to wrestle and how much he got out of them. Wrestling guys like Yaki Joe, Frank Dusek and Cocoa Samoa in 2 out of 3 falls matches is not the easiest job in the world.

[Dylan Waco]

One thing worth noting about Buddy is that we have a fair amount of footage of him going back to 77. This is relevant because as soon as he starts popping up he is great, and he is great through the end of his AWA run in early 87. So despite being someone who many might identify as having a short peak, I actually think his peak/years as a really strong worker are well documented, diverse and much longer lasting than is usually assumed. I don't think I could rate him in the top five or anything like that, but I also don't think it would be weird at all for someone to rate him that highly.

[Venegas]

I'm working my way through the Buddy Rose comp made by Will. I'll write at length about Rose once I finish the set.

[Wade Garrett]

One thing worth noting about Buddy is that we have a fair amount of footage of him going back to 77. This is relevant because as soon as he starts popping up he is great, and he is great through the end of his AWA run in early 87. So despite being someone who many might identify as having a short peak, I actually think his peak/years as a really strong worker are well documented, diverse and much longer lasting than is usually assumed. I don't think I could rate him in the top five or anything like that, but I also don't think it would be weird at all for someone to rate him that highly.

 

I agree Mr. Waco. I woulda loved to have seen Rose in JCP in the late 70's and early 80's where I coulda seen him live and in the mix with that roster at the time. He was a natural.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

Genuine top 10 contender, possibly top 5. Such a talented wrestler. Great at working the mat. Has lots of longer matches with a lot of working holds, and what I really like about Rose is that he never just sits in a hold. Whether he's applying the hold, or the recipient of the hold, he's always working, selling, mugging, grabbing for some hair, wrenching, looking for an out. The guy had an abundant supply of shit he could do to fill a match. He could stall, play to the crowd, beg off, primp and pose, and my favourite, the challenge his opponent to a contest of athletic feats spot (here's a nip-up, can you do a nip-up?). Buddy Rose doing athletic spots even when the pounds really starting to pile on is one of my favourite things in wrestling. Only Porky is a more entertaining fat guy doing athletic things. Rose has great comedy spots, and was a great stooge, but he could turn it on and get serious, had a great mean streak, and was really effective targeting an injured body part or a cut, and just looking like a real dangerous guy. Could brawl. Excellent tag worker. I've never seen Buddy shit the bed, and it's not like he was in there with great talents a lot of the time. To me, Buddy is the quintessential territory heel, the guy you love to hate who can have a good match with just about anyone. The only possible knock against him is I don't know how well he worked as a babyface, but if you're an all-time great heel, it maybe doesn't matter that much.

[goodhelmet]

We have footage of face Buddy in Portland. It wasn't a long run but enough to know that he could work as a great babyface.

[El-P]

I was not blown away by the Hennig matches at all. Very good stuff, yes, and I love Buddy in AWA with Sommers, but it will take a lot more to convince me he's a top 20-15 workers. Way too much people over there already.

[ohtani's jacket]

Great at working the mat. Has lots of longer matches with a lot of working holds, and what I really like about Rose is that he never just sits in a hold.

 

Almost did a spit take when I read this. Dude lies in holds all the time. He'd always do that face lock spot where he'd smother a guy.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

We have footage of face Buddy in Portland. It wasn't a long run but enough to know that he could work as a great babyface.

 

I've seen him work face. I just don't know that he was particularly great at it. To me it's a huge feather in your cap if you can be great at both heel and face. But, as I said, when you're one of the best ever heels, I can forgive you not being a great face.

[Yo-Yo's Roomie]

 

Great at working the mat. Has lots of longer matches with a lot of working holds, and what I really like about Rose is that he never just sits in a hold.

 

Almost did a spit take when I read this. Dude lies in holds all the time. He'd always do that face lock spot where he'd smother a guy.

 

 

We must have seen different matches, because to me he's a master of doing stuff while in holds.

[elliott]

The more I think about Buddy Rose, the more I think of him as a candidate for the #1 spot. He's a guy who had great matches/performances as a babyface, an ass kicking heel, and stooging heel. He was great in long singles matches, short sprints, tag matches and 6man tag matches. He has great feuds as a singles wrestlers and a tag wrestler. He could work holds on the mat, do great schtick, and had really awesome highspots. He was as great working comedy spots as he was in wild bloody brawls. etc etc etc.

 

Buddy's case isn't about longevity, it is about density + variety. We have a shit load of available footage from late 77-83 and it shows Buddy having consistently very good-great performances in different settings: Singles, tags, heel, face, against young green workers, against old veterans, against good wrestlers, against bad wrestlers, against flyers/power wrestlers/mat workers etc. All of this took place over a relatively short period of time 77-83. But there's enough footage within that period of time to know that Buddy's peak was as good and versatile as his biggest fans will tell you.

 

I would recommend any and all singles matches vs Martel, Piper, Jay Youngblood, Hennig, Dynamite Kid, Adrian Adonis, Bob Backlund, Matt Borne, Marty Jannety. There are some things I want to rewatch like vs Chris Adams, Butch Miller, Snuka, Lonnie Mayne, etc.

 

Everyone already knows about the team with Doug Somers and the feud vs The Rockers and it is an all time great feud. I would also highly recommend the Buddy Rose/Ed Wiskowski team as a great forgotten team with the match vs Martel/Piper from 8/2/80 being their best match if I'm remembering right.

 

Anyway, everyone should really try and watch some Buddy Rose for this project. He's a legit #1 candidate if you value peak, variety, and even volume of great matches/performances.

[JRGoldman]

I love Buddy and he's going to end up very high on my ballot, but he might be the highest ranked wrestler that I feel has no shot at number one. I just can't convince myself that he is clearly better than Lawler or Flair, both of whom I view as contemporaries of Rose. This says nothing of people from Mexico or Japan. I feel like if you can't lay a claim to best wrestler from your time period and geography, you can't lay a claim to number one. I probably like Buddy more than Flair, but I'd be interested to hear the argument for putting Buddy ahead of him.

[Dylan Waco]

I'm not saying I buy the argument that Rose is a strong number one contender, but I can't say that I think there is anything in elliot's argument that I think is off. In fact it's dead on.

 

As for point about being the best in a time/geography I'll be honest - I think there is very little video evidence that can support the argument that Ric Flair was better than Rose in the last 70s, or even 80 or 81. 82 is a bit different. 83 is an all time great year for Flair and Buddy. But while Flair may have been better from 77-81, I simply have never seen the footage to prove it. I have seen the footage from Buddy during that period and it's great. We have some big time stuff from Lawler during that perid (mainly 77 IIRC), but of course he was hurt in 80, and 80 is arguably Buddy's peak year. Based on footage and not what people say, I'm not sure anyone can compete with Buddy from late period of the 70's through 81 other than Fujinami. Some might argue for Jumbo I guess, but I'm not nearly the fan of him that others are. In any event that's elite company.

 

I've said this before and i'll say it again from the cumulative period starting in 77 when we start getting Buddy footage (at least I think it's 77)-83, I don't know that there is anyone with the footage resume that matches Rose. I'm not saying for sure that there isn't, and a few guys have cases (namely Fujinami and Lawler for my tastes), but Buddy would be my top guy from that cumulative period for the reasons elliot outlines.

 

On top of that, if I were voting purely on who I thought was the best wrestler I've ever seen in terms of absolute peak, I think Buddy would be my top pick. That's not a knock on Flair, Funk, Hansen, Lawler, Fujinami, et. but to me Buddy was the best I've ever seen at combining the athletic and psychological aspects of the game, while working diversified matches, against a huge range of opponents, in a wide variety of match types. To be honest I wouldn't even put any of those guys at his level in that regard, as I think his stiffest competition for "absolute peak" is El Dandy.

[JRGoldman]

I agree almost one hundred percent about your points on Buddy and his peak. I would agree that everything w have from Buddy in the late 70s is tremendous, and I would grant that Flair in the late 70s had not reached his peak as a worker. That being said, I think once Flair starts having good matches in 81-82 he surpasses Buddy and doesn't really look back at any point. I love Buddy's stuff with Somers in AWA, but I'm not sure I would buy it as better than Flair for those same years. I'm not accusing anyone of cherry picking because we are arguing over two people who will both be top 5 on a lot of ballots and number one on some others, but I think in the years in which both were active and relevant, Flair was better in more of those years. Whether or not you think that matters is a totally different argument that I'm not interested in having because people can vote on any criteria they want. Personally I think I will probably value peak very highly because there are only so many people who can lay claim to being "the best" for any length of time and that should absolutely matter. That being said, when peaks are roughly equivalent or even in the same ball park, the ability to maintain and sustain has to be taken in to account, which I think is what I'm trying to say with this Flair vs. Buddy business.

[elliott]

Just to start, I would agree with Dylan that Buddy is the best wrestler in the world (based on what's available and what I've seen of course) from 77-83.

 

I would also say that I don't necessarily think that Buddy is a STRONG #1 candidate. But he is someone I am thinking about as a candidate along with a bunch of other guys.

 

Lastly (haha not really), I thought it was interesting that JRGoldman said Buddy would be his highest ranked guy who wasn't a #1 candidate because when I made a (very) rough draft for my list, Buddy was the lowest ranked guy I would have considered for #1. He was still 15^th. But the more I thought about it, the more I felt I lowballed him. That’s what got me thinking about Buddy, this project, and the unproofread madness that follows is the result.

 

I understand not being able to see Buddy as a #1 candidate, while still viewing him that way myself. Everyone has a different #1 candidate be it Flair, Lawler, Jumbo, Fujiwara, Casas, Satanico, Santo, Tenryu, Hansen, etc. Whoever. These guys work different styles and in different places and time periods. But the one thing they all have in common is they are peak+longevity candidates. They had a clear peak where they were a best in the world candidate and then continued to have great matches (some consistent, some sporadic) after that peak as old men. It's impressive to be able to say Stan Hansen had a great match in 1975 and 2000 (and a million in between). You can't do that with Buddy Rose because (excluding the AWA run) he was basically done as a great worker by 1984.

 

Just for context, Buddy was born 2 weeks after Randy Savage and 3 years after Jerry Lawler and Ric Flair.

 

Buddy is definitely a different sort of candidate. Like I said before, he isn't a traditional peak+longevity candidate. He is a peak+variety candidate. But even then it's kind of tricky because in some ways he IS a longevity candidate. He’s also a great match theory/Matt D Demolition theory wrestler (don’t worry, I’ll get there). Buddy is the sort of candidate that makes you think about what those terms mean and what you value in wrestlers.

 

We keep talking about peak because Buddy’s career is so short overall and so much of his case is down to his peak and how impressive you think it is. Every wrestler peaks obviously. But there are different levels and different lengths. Some guys are top 50ish workers at their best. Others are candidates for the best in the world. Etc. I know Dylan pointed to 1980 as Buddy’s best year and people can call that Buddy’s peak but what I (and Dylan I assume) mean when we’re talking about Buddy Rose’s peak is the stretch from late 1977-1983. Five and a half years as the best guy in the world or at worst a candidate for it. That’s actually a pretty impressive length of time and not something to just gloss over. I know someone can come in and drop a bunch of wrestlers and say they were best in the world or candidates or whatever and they will be longer than 5+ years. That’s ok and I expect it. I would like to say again that I think Buddy was the best guy in the world for 5+ years. So I would need to see guys that I thought were also undisputed best wrestler in the world for 5+ years. I would also say that I think being the best wrestler in the world for 5 plus years is really impressive. And I wonder how many guys were the best in the world for 5 straight years. Obviously that comes down to personal preference and a lot of other things. But since I do think he had a 5+year run as the best wrestler in the world, that does mean a lot to me as far as him being a candidate for #1 overall.

 

Buuuuut.

 

Context is important. So it really doesn’t mean much to just say “Buddy’s peak was this high and this long” and leave it at that. Especially for a guy like Buddy who is primarily a peak based candidate, we have to look at what he was doing to be the (or one of the) best guy in the world.

As a quick aside, I wanted to first address some historical things. I expect people to say “Being the best wrestler in the world from 77-83 isn’t as impressive as being the best wrestler in the world from 92-97.” There are a number of reasons you could use that argument. You could think matches are just better from 92-97 than the 77-83 timeframe. Or you could point to vast amount of footage from 92 to 97 and point out that it would be harder to stand out in that time frame. I understand those arguments completely. And I would just say that Buddy’s body of work from 77-83 is as impressive a stretch as I have seen from any wrestler regardless of timeframe. I’m not swayed by the idea that Misawa/Kawada was better than Rose/Martel. And I think when you look at the big picture and what Rose did during that peak as a whole it is staggering. This leads us to variety.

 

The “peak” part of the argument for Rose is important, but just as important is the “variety.” Buddy was among the most versatile wrestlers I’ve ever seen. As I said in my first post:

“He's a guy who had great matches/performances as a babyface, an ass kicking heel, and stooging heel. He was great in long singles matches, short sprints, tag matches and 6man tag matches. He has great feuds as a singles wrestlers and a tag wrestler. He could work holds on the mat, do great schtick, and had really awesome highspots. He was as great working comedy spots as he was in wild bloody brawls. etc etc etc.” … “We have a shit load of available footage from late 77-83 and it shows Buddy having consistently very good-great performances in different settings: Singles, tags, heel, face, against young green workers, against old veterans, against good wrestlers, against bad wrestlers, against flyers/power wrestlers/mat workers etc.”

Buddy wasn’t a wrestler who simply excelled as a tag wrestler or as a brawler or as a mat worker or working schtick. During that 77-83 run he was great at literally every single aspect of wrestling no matter who he was against. He was just as natural working comedy stooging spots as he was bloodying an opponent. Anything you could hope to see is in that run.

 

But the thing is, you can’t really see all of that watching a few matches here and there. You have to watch it all in context and see the whole arc to really grasp his brilliance. (This is the Matt D Demolition part). Buddy was the ace of a promotion that showed big, long, 2/3 fall matches between top stars on free TV. The success of the promotion was basically built on Buddy’s ability to have long entertaining and different matches every week. So seeing this happen week after week year after year (aside from some trips to) is really impressive to me and makes me believe in the “wrestling genius” nickname.

 

But the thing that makes Buddy an interesting candidate, is that in addition to being a “great at everything” candidate, he also has a huge list of great matches and feuds that stands up well next to just about anyone else’s. It might not have matches 25 years apart, but it is long and includes a long list of names. It might not be as visually impressive to see several Buddy Rose vs Roddy Piper on a match list of doom compared to something like Misawa vs Kawada. But that Roddy Piper feud is fucking awesome. I’m not saying all the Rose vs Piper matches are better than 6/3/94. But it is a great feud with some great matches and Rose is doing it with Roddy Piper, not Toshiaki Kawada. This isn’t to say Roddy Piper sucks (he doesn’t, he is awesome). It’s more to say that someone might look at a Match list of Doom for Buddy Rose and not be able to fathom how he’s a #1 candidate when his best matches are against guys like Matt Borne, Roddy Piper, and Jay Youngblood not fellow greats like Steamboat and Funk or Kawada and Kobashi. I’m not accusing anyone here of having that perception and really I’m just rambling. But it’s another thing that makes Buddy a “non-traditional” candidate for number one.

 

If I were to do this list today, I probably wouldn’t have Buddy as my #1. But I was thinking about the project and what things matter to me. Peak, longevity, versatility, great matches, etc and it got me thinking about Buddy Rose. I do think he’s a #1 candidate, but I can’t deny he’s a weird choice and I understand people not seeing it. I mean, Buddy is a guy whose candidacy is based primarily on a 5 ½ year stretch and a tremendous one year post prime (the 84-85 footage I’ve seen is still very good but there isn’t as much footage as the previous years). Compared to someone like Hijo del Santo who had great matches for what, 30 years? Santo found a timeless formula and used it to have great match after great match. Rose had great match after great match but it only amounts to about 7 years. Yet I’ll have both of them in my top 10 and I view them both as #1 candidates. Just for radically different reasons. Anyway, Buddy rocks and everyone should buy the Rose set and watch it all twice.

[shoe]

Stuff Buddy does in the ring I value highly. My dream match was Buddy/Steamer. He'll make my top 10-20 easy how much more not sure.