Your Working Number 1!

[GOTNW]

I still don't get why him and Jumbo of all people never clicked though.

 

Probably because they are both overrated

[Matt D]

I totally understand why you'd lean toward Bock instead of Flair (and after watching tons of Bock, put me in the same boat), but I totally don't understand why you'd find it lacking as far an Hansen goes.

 

I've done the legwork. I'll write a lot about this sometime in the next month. I think it has to do with implicit vs explicit storytelling though.

[El-P]

Where is that quote about wrestlers not doing anything the old-grandma at ringside wouldn't be able to understand already ?

[Matt D]

Where is that quote about wrestlers not doing anything the old-grandma at ringside wouldn't be able to understand already ?

 

Hey, they'll almost certainly be in my top 30, and probably higher than that. It's a personal preference thing. I can appreciate that something is effective but still not prefer it or think it is superior (even if it's potentially more effective).

[InYourCase]

Hansen and Kobashi are battling for my #1. Danielson has fallen off into a comfortable third with Kawada and Tenryu behind him and Misawa, Mysterio Jr, and Mochizuki behind them.

 

I'm getting close to finishing up Hansen's All Japan work and I have absolutely loved it. One thing that Hansen does better than anyone I've ever seen is project a sense of danger when he's outside the ring. The 10/21/86 match with Jumbo is the best example I've seen of that. There's almost a sense of dread when he and Jumbo leave the ring. It's so much different than Jeff Jarrett's walk-n-brawls. When Hansen is on the outside, I feel like someone is about to die. I love it. No one has made the ring post look as dangerous. I'm also a huge fan of the way Hansen works tag matches. He always finds a way to stand out in them. I was telling Dylan on Twitter a few weeks ago that I adore the way Hansen moves around the ring. He always looks like he's trying to rip someone's head off and I love that.

 

Kobashi is the ultimate babyface and I love that about him. I love his GHC run and the vast majority of his All Japan stuff that I've seen. One thing that might hurt him when I'm finalizing my list is that he only worked that King's Road/NOAH main event style. I'm amazed at how well Hansen has adapted everywhere I've seen him. Loved his Colon stuff in Puerto Rico, his All Japan run, and the little bit of stuff I've seen from his New Japan run. I haven't even touched his AWA work yet.

[JerryvonKramer]

It's a personal thing.

 

I think this is my biggest problem with Flair and Hansen and why I lean so heavily towards Bockwinkel.

 

I want, at the highest level, at the very least, the illusion of intent.

 

What does this even mean?

 

Bock has his fair share of banana peel finishes, stuff that is organic etc. etc.

 

I don't get where this "intent" idea comes from. Bock was probably calling his shit on the fly as much as Flair in 99% of cases. Those guys didn't plan anything.

 

If you want "intent" Savage laying out stuff move for move or modern day Cena matches with road agents laying out every spot are surely closer.

 

How much of the idea of Bock being "smart" comes from the fact he uses big words and looks calculated? I'm not being facetious, I mean that. And I'm probably going to be the second highest Bock voter.

[JerryvonKramer]

Every single wrestler I've ever seen has go to spots they do in every match because they know it works. Every one. Even Bock.

 

Watch enough of any given guy and you could probably predict half of what they do. You could at least call most of their spots. There are no exceptions to this that I've seen. None.

[Matt D]

I say this as a friend, but you need to stop questioning people's motives. Nothing makes any of this more joyless than you repeatedly seeing people as less than earnest.

 

I will clarify tomorrow, even if I found your tone and your lack of grace in granting the benefit of the doubt to be both petty and woefully unsurprising.

[JerryvonKramer]

I don't really understand how that reply came from those posts.

[Matt D]

Couple of things to hit. As always, we're talking about things that separate #20 on my list from #10 or #10 from #1 so all of these guys are good and this is very much about me working through why I feel how I do.

 

1.) "Illusion of Intent:" I'm coining phrases here in order to try to understand why and how I feel the way I do about things. I didn't well define this one, but to me illusion of intent is not intent itself. It's not calling a match or preparing it beforehand. It's being able to present, in ring, a proactive instead of reactive strategy. Bockwinkel often does that. You get the sense he's come into a match with a gameplan. It's an element of storytelling. I like watching a match and having the perception that the character I am watching wrestle has a reason for doing what he's doing and that the reason is proactive and not reactive. It doesn't mean there's anything necessarily bad about being reactive. It's a preference and I think it's something that I respond to negatively with both Flair and Hansen, though they both portray it in different ways. This is down to being biased towards different genres or tropes. If a wrestler can have great performances without this, I note that. I respect it, but my preference towards it may color my perspective when it comes to the difference between #1 and #10.

 

2.) Hansen, in general. I still don't have the right words for Hansen. It's not lazy storytelling, except for maybe it is. Hansen, in Japan, to me is lazy from a narrative sense. He forces his opponent down one specific path. There's no room for imagination or for deviation. He'll present a vulnerability and the opponent either has to take it or he'll eat him alive. Hansen matches are about how the opponent reacts to Hansen, and while they are often very good because of the consistency and focus and because of Hansen's energy and what he forces out of his opponent, it's not a narrative that I'm particularly interested in. It's not collaborative. It's not overly creative to me, at least not over multiple matches. I come across the occasional one which is interesting due to the vulnerability the opponent manages to strike or in the way he mounts his comeback but it's all reactive in a way that doesn't appeal to me over a number of matches as much as other more varied styles of narrative in wrestling.

 

Hansen comes off as a tool to me, basically. I always say that about RVD, that he's a prop, sort of an automaton that you can utilize to certain ends, and it's not at all fair to compare that to Hansen, but there are similarities. There are certain things you can get out of Hansen, and they are amazing things, inputs that you can utilize as another wrestler. His intensity, his timing, his selling, his character, his aura, etch. But the impression I get from him is that he is an engine that drives forward constantly, and it's up to his opponent to redirect and try to manage to steer.

 

I feel differently about Hansen in other settings. I love his match with Bockwinkel for instance because it works in a different way. Likewise the match with Hennig.

[El-P]

You didn't compare all-time great Stan Hansen with all-time shitty RVD, did you ? (yeah, I agree about Brock BTW and feel the same way about his work, and about the "tool" aspect of RVD's work, in more ways than one. Totally disagree about Hansen though, but you already knew that)

[JerryvonKramer]

Matt is writing as if every single Hansen match is a sprint brawl, but that isn't quite true.

 

It is true that he goes to the "jump-start" a lot and cuts off the shine to accelerate the match, but Hansen could do some matwork and sell holds etc. too. Watch him vs. Inoki, vs. Funk, vs. Vader, vs. Kawada -- say, as a random cross section of guys, and they are worked differently.

 

If you want to see a real "tool" as you say, watch Hansen vs. Backlund and marvel at how Bobby B turns Hansen into just another challenger to no-sell for.

[Matt D]

I'm not saying every Hansen match is a spring brawl, but that he exerts a consistent pressure that limits possibilities, and then, only in Japan.

[JerryvonKramer]

I do understand what you are getting at, but I think it's really underselling his selling abilities. You have to stop the raging bull in the first place, but once you do, he will give back.

 

But this is down to character, what I was getting at earlier. Hansen was "The Lariat", a big fearsome, charging man.

 

Bock was a wily, well-groomed, self-styled intellectual heel champ with Bobby Heenan in his corner. Bock seemed to have a gameplan because his character was a strategist. A chessmaster.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, if you hold this idea of "proactive intent" as a key criteria, then probably your top 10 should be filled with wily, intellectual heels. Because those are the types of guys who are going to be able to fulfill it.

 

Bret Hart too.

[LowBlowPodcast]

I know I haven't taken part too much in the discussion on here and I am hoping to dip my toe in slowly, but for a number one, Billy Robinson is a guy that was one of the most fluid workers I have ever seen. He had a great catch as catch can style and is fun to go back and see. Nothing against Flair, Savage, Steamboat, and some of the others as they were all great. It is almost a different style. You guys all have a rich history of watching, and really some of the best wrestling from guys like Flair and Steamboat may never be seen as it wasn't taped. Just putting Billy Robinson out there as a guy that I really think had it going on when it comes to the "wrestling" aspect of professional wrestling.

[Dylan Waco]

I understand Matt's point, but I actually don't think it's as consistent a staple of Hansen's work as he implies. Some of the Colon matches would pose a contrast for example. I also think the match with Leon White from the AWA does at least in a sense, and I could probably find several others with minimal effort.

 

Funny enough one match that I think absolutely fits with the narrative he presents is that Hennig match, which he oddly sees as deviating from that script. That I don't get at all.

[Matt D]

When I mentioned that Hansen was a tool in Japan, I indicated that he was an amazing tool and highlighted his selling. I've done legwork and have a much deeper appreciation of Hansen's selling than previously. That didn't really change how I felt though, which is why I tried to refine my thoughts further.

 

Some of this is stylistic backdrop too, though. As Elliott pointed out, I praise Eadie (who certainly won't make my top 10 either) for doing much the same thing as part of Demolition, but that's because of his environment where babyfaces were taking way too much of the matches. Japan is a very different place than 1988 WWF.

 

For full disclosure, my top 10 might well be as you described, and Buddy Rose, who had the illusion of illusion of intent, maybe?

 

Dylan, yeah, the Bock match (or the White match) is a much better example than the Hennig match, but please note that I'm saying "in Japan" over and over again when discussing this element of Hansen. I feel differently about him outside of Japan, but most of the matches people have to look at for him and that they are ranking him so highly on ARE the Japanese matches. He'll still rank very highly for me on the merits of everything we've been discussing but also, especially, on his non-Japan work. He just won't be in my top ten likely.

[Dylan Waco]

I do understand what you are getting at, but I think it's really underselling his selling abilities. You have to stop the raging bull in the first place, but once you do, he will give back.

 

But this is down to character, what I was getting at earlier. Hansen was "The Lariat", a big fearsome, charging man.

 

Bock was a wily, well-groomed, self-styled intellectual heel champ with Bobby Heenan in his corner. Bock seemed to have a gameplan because his character was a strategist. A chessmaster.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, if you hold this idea of "proactive intent" as a key criteria, then probably your top 10 should be filled with wily, intellectual heels. Because those are the types of guys who are going to be able to fulfill it.

 

Bret Hart too.

 

I actually think Matt's list will reflect this pretty well. You could easily argue that Bock and Buddy Rose are the two best fits for that sort of wrestler, and I think there is a strong chance both will be in Matt's top five. He is likely to have Bret pretty damn high too if the infamous BRet v. Flair thread is any indicator.