Booker Ratings

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Tito was a big star in 84-5, around the time he was IC champ. I don't think he was a big star before that, and that star had gone by 87 at the latest as he slid down the card.

 

Jake, I don't know, cos Kris and others seem to think he was a significant territory star in a way that I don't really recognise. I'll be honest, I just don't see him in those terms, but there's disagreement over it. I'd have said 86 with him until about 91. He's still a big enough star to come into the main event at Havoc 92.

 

He wasn't Jericho vs. Gedo level that's for sure.

We didn't realize how big Tito was in Houston. Boesch gave him the Gold Cup in 81.

 

 

It's tricky to guage how big a star someone was in the territory era. Houston is just one town.

 

I tend to see it in terms of how in-demand someone was and where on the card they'd work if they were brought in. Tito may have been in Houston main events, but I don't see him going into somewhere like GCW or Crockett in top-level feuds, and I don't see him having an explosive impact like, say, Piper in GCW.

 

If a top top star is someone like Dusty -- NWA title contender, in-demand everywhere, MSG bookings, headlining Omni cards, Greensboro cards, headlining shows in Florida. Undeniably a star. He's going to pop a gate, or make a definite "before" and "after" type impact on a territory. The Freebirds would be an act along those lines. Michael Hayes was undeniably "a star" at this time. On a sliding scale somewhere down the other end you've got someone like a Doug Somers, just a journeyman, not a star at all.

 

You also then having home-steading stars like Lawler in Memphis, Tommy Rich in Georgia, Bruno or Backlund in WWF and so on and so forth. To anchor a territoy is a big deal.

 

I don't see Tito as being in that sort of bracket.

 

I don't really see Jack in that sort of bracket either, but maybe I should, I dunno.

[Matt D]

Tito main evented against Bock in AWA too.

[JerryvonKramer]

Tito main evented against Bock in AWA too.

 

Right, but Sika had shots against Hogan in 1987.

 

Just having a main event match in itself doesn't make someone a "star". I don't think Sika was a particularly big star in 1987 (for example), or that putting him in that slot (I think he was subbing for Kamala), made him one. I mean, if you want to argue that Tito's Houston and AWA runs made him a "big star" by 1982, go for it. I'm not convinced, and credit Vince not Verne or Boesch for "making Tito a star". It's not because I have some pro-Vince bias, it's just because I don't think he was a big star before 1984. Maybe everyone figures that out in their own way.

 

You HAVE to credit Watts for DiBiase, Duggan and JYD, for example, but I wouldn't credit him with Warrior or Sting. He just gave them a job.

 

The Jericho example is the easiest one because you can see how in WCW he goes from feuding with Perry Saturn to .... sharing screentime with The Rock in a debut that I can still remember 17 years later. Eric gave him a job, but Vince made him a star.

[Matt D]

In general, I don't think you're spending enough time watching Classics. That stuff might not be available forever.

[Loss]

All people I'd say Bischoff did more for than Jericho who went on to become stars to varying degrees, and it's hard to argue he made any of them stars:

 

- Chris Benoit

- Booker T

- Rey Mysterio

- Eddy Guerrero

[Loss]

I also think some context is important. Yes, he built his turnaround around WWF castoffs (who I'd add were all cast off way too soon), but he also repackaged them in new and interesting ways. The whole idea behind creating new stars is to create fresh matchups with people who aren't stale. At his best point, Bischoff used established stars to do that for sure, but he presented them in a very fresh way where they might as well have been "new" stars:

 

- Hogan was not a Bischoff creation, but he wasn't a Vince creation either. Hollywood Hogan was the most successful Hogan endeavor since probably 1989.

- Hall and Nash became stars in the WWF, but they became bigger in WCW than they ever were in the WWF.

- Savage was put back in the ring and revitalized. The WWF had really diminished him post-1992. Bischoff made him a relevant, money-drawing headliner years after he had been written off.

- Piper probably falls in that same category

- Sting was a national star who never really was successful in a huge way. He was reimagined under Bischoff in a way that prepared him to become a superstar, even if they did not follow up on it properly.

- Luger was more over than he had been at any point since 1988. He became a viable headliner where by the end of his time in the WWF, he was a midcard tag wrestler.

 

I think creating new stars is important and needs to happen almost constantly to keep things fresh. It's definitely a black mark against Bischoff that he didn't seem to realize this wouldn't last forever and didn't build for the future at all. But I think it's important to also evaluate bookers/promoters on their ability to get the most out of what they have. Within that, you can evaluate the ability to create new stars. Vince could have had all those guys and would have never been able to create the success Bischoff had because his promotional concepts were outdated.

[Loss]

One more point: I think if we look at most territories and their successful periods, most of them are based on people new to the territory, not necessarily brand new stars that were created from nothing. WCW did the same -- they created a boom based around people that were new to their territory. That's mainly relevant in the sense that if we are evaluating guys like Watts and Vince Sr., it is more of a common denominator.

[JerryvonKramer]

I also think some context is important. Yes, he built his turnaround around WWF castoffs (who I'd add were all cast off way too soon), but he also repackaged them in new and interesting ways. The whole idea behind creating new stars is to create fresh matchups with people who aren't stale. At his best point, Bischoff used established stars to do that for sure, but he presented them in a very fresh way where they might as well have been "new" stars:

 

- Hogan was not a Bischoff creation, but he wasn't a Vince creation either. Hollywood Hogan was the most successful Hogan endeavor since probably 1989.

- Hall and Nash became stars in the WWF, but they became bigger in WCW than they ever were in the WWF.

- Savage was put back in the ring and revitalized. The WWF had really diminished him post-1992. Bischoff made him a relevant, money-drawing headliner years after he had been written off.

- Piper probably falls in that same category

- Sting was a national star who never really was successful in a huge way. He was reimagined under Bischoff in a way that prepared him to become a superstar, even if they did not follow up on it properly.

- Luger was more over than he had been at any point since 1988. He became a viable headliner where by the end of his time in the WWF, he was a midcard tag wrestler.

 

I think creating new stars is important and needs to happen almost constantly to keep things fresh. It's definitely a black mark against Bischoff that he didn't seem to realize this wouldn't last forever and didn't build for the future at all. But I think it's important to also evaluate bookers/promoters on their ability to get the most out of what they have. Within that, you can evaluate the ability to create new stars. Vince could have had all those guys and would have never been able to create the success Bischoff had because his promotional concepts were outdated.

 

I don't disagree with any of this, but look at Bischoff's ratings:

 

Mastery over crowd: 3

Innovation: 7

Angles: 4

Quality of Cards: 8

Finances: 2

Talent spotting / New stars: 0

 

The stuff you've said lies primarily behind the two numbers I've bolded there.

 

You might ask why they are so low. And it's because Bischoff seems to be a guy whose really great ideas you can count on one hand (Hogan's heel turn, NWO, Crow Sting, Nitro, Goldberg's streak) and yet each and every one of them made a huge impact.

 

I realise that Kevin Sullivan might have actually been the ideas man in some of these cases, but the buck stopped with Eric.

 

Maybe you can edit the title from "Booker" to "Promoter" because that's essentially what we're looking at. For example, it might have been Bill Dundee, Ernie Ladd, or Buck Robley booking for Watts, but his keen eye for detail and presentational skills, his insistence on logic and so on, are still the hallmarks of his promotion.

 

Vince has had dozens of guys booking for him over the years, and yet his handprints are all over everything that goes out.

 

I guess it's like we say that Snow White and Pinnochio are Walt Disney films even though he didn't even write or direct either of them, but his personal vision was driving it.

[Grimmas]

This is going nowhere until you define "Talent spotting / New stars".

[JerryvonKramer]

One more point: I think if we look at most territories and their successful periods, most of them are based on people new to the territory, not necessarily brand new stars that were created from nothing. WCW did the same -- they created a boom based around people that were new to their territory. That's mainly relevant in the sense that if we are evaluating guys like Watts and Vince Sr., it is more of a common denominator.

 

There's probably a missing statistic here, which is something like

 

- Ability to get someone over

 

For example, Vince Sr. had a formula for getting heels over in the area: 1. Rub from manager (Wizard / Blassie / Albano), 2. Go over established babyface (Strongbow / Denucci), 3. DQ / CO win over champ x 2, 4. Pinned by champ, 5. Job to established babyface on the way out (Putski / Strongbow), 6. Transfer heat to manager

 

Process then starts again in a perfect loop of constant heel heat, which could get anyone over.

 

So while Vince Sr didn't get over many new stars, he had a brilliant way of introducing new workers to the area.

 

----------

 

I'd argue that the greatest at this was ... well, it's Vince Jr again, especially late 80s with the skits leading up to debut (see DiBiase and Perfect skits). Even watching that Jericho one earlier he said in the promo "If you don't know me, my name is Chris Jericho". Vince always pretty much started on the assumption that the audience wouldn't know a guy and built them from the ground up.

 

One notable exception is actually Hogan himself in 1984, where if you actually watch that footage he's introduced as "coming BACK to the WWF" and they acknowledge the previous heel run. Just interesting to consider in the context of this thread.

[Loss]

I think the idea of creating new stars is a post-territory construct. It became necessary at that point to build talent from the ground up because the old farm system of the territories was gone. Before that, the focus I think was always more on rotating in fresh talent to keep the matches fresh, but not necessarily creating a new star. So in that sense, I'm not sure how much it matters that Watts created Dr. Death from scratch where he didn't with Ted DiBiase, Terry Taylor or the Rock N Roll Express, all of whom ultimately meant more to Mid South.

 

I think about the Freebirds -- they were new stars in Georgia and Texas, even though Watts "created" the group.

 

Of the people who were out there and available, Bischoff actually did a great job identifying the talent who could contribute the most to a WCW turnaround, so I don't think a '0' score there is fair.

[Loss]

Also, I have to ask a few questions about the initial rankings:

 

- Where did Bill Watts not have mastery over his crowd? What is the difference between an 8 and a 10?

- How does 80s Vince get a 10 for mastery over his crowd during the same period when Watts' cards tended to be more heated from top to bottom?

- How does 90s Vince get a 10 for talent spotting? He let Hogan, Savage and Piper go at a time when they all had plenty left in the tank. He had failed experiments with Luger and Diesel.

- Why is mastery over crowd so low for Dusty and Crockett?

- Eric Bischoff turned a $55m net profit in 1998, which I believe is still the most profitable year a wrestling company has ever had. I realize he had money losing years too, but how do you come up with 2 in that category? Surely, having the single most profitable year in wrestling history has to count for more than a 2, right? It's especially something I don't understand when Heyman comes out higher in that category.

[NintendoLogic]

How does Vince having to abort a planned Hogan/Roberts program because too many fans cheered for Jake when they taped the initial angle play into his crowd mastery rating?

[Paul Jacobi]

Also, I have to ask a few questions about the initial rankings:

 

- Where did Bill Watts not have mastery over his crowd? What is the difference between an 8 and a 10?

- How does 80s Vince get a 10 for mastery over his crowd during the same period when Watts' cards tended to be more heated from top to bottom?

- How does 90s Vince get a 10 for talent spotting? He let Hogan, Savage and Piper go at a time when they all had plenty left in the tank. He had failed experiments with Luger and Diesel.

- Why is mastery over crowd so low for Dusty and Crockett?

- Eric Bischoff turned a $55m net profit in 1998, which I believe is still the most profitable year a wrestling company has ever had. I realize he had money losing years too, but how do you come up with 2 in that category? Surely, having the single most profitable year in wrestling history has to count for more than a 2, right? It's especially something I don't understand when Heyman comes out higher in that category.

Bischoff had a nice run in 98, but WWE had higher profits in multiple years.

Breakdown is here: http://www.gerweck.net/information/wwe-business-history/

Most insane is the 84 million in wrestling profit in FY 00-01 (excluding the XFL losses).

Just an absolutely incredible run from 98-01

[Loss]

It is an incredible run, but I believe the WCW number was net profit and those numbers are gross. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I just know Dave cited that number for years and years as the biggest profit year ever.

[jdw]

He challenged for the Triple Crown in September of 1994. That is 2.5 years after the nuclear heat that is seen in the 5/25/92 tag. That is a good bit of patience all for a Triple Crown challenge against a rival making his first defense. What is a point of comparison for someone else that over that had to wait that long for a shot?

 

That would be an upper mid-card match in Kikuchi's hometown.

 

Kawada got heat in his All Asia matches in 1988 and 1989. Look up when he got his first TC title challenge.

 

Or look at the spunky heat Mutoh got in the Summer Night Fever match in 1987. He didn't get an IWGP Title match until *1992*. Grant, he was in the US for a chunk of that time. But he started his second run with the IWGP Tag title in April 1990, had that great heat in the title change in November of that year, had the great heat against Vader and Chono the following August... and still had to wait until May 1992 to get his first title shot. And Mutoh was a much bigger star in 1990-92 than Kobashi was.

 

I think people are projecting where Kobashi was in May 1992. He was here:

 

Jumbo

Hansen

Misawa

Gordy

Williams

Kawada

Taue

Kobashi

 

He was 8th in the company. He was 3rd on his own *team*. His lead partner (Misawa) had all of 3 challenges by that point in the 4 years the title existed. Misawa lead partner (Kawada) just got his first challenge the prior October. Taue hadn't gotten his first challenge year, and he was Jumbo's lead partner.

 

All Japan's business was hot in 1992-94 as it had been in 1990-91. They would just start the Misawa-Kawada rivalry for the TC later that year at the Anniversary Show, at a point when those two hadn't even broken up their team. Misawa-Kawada was hot through 1994, and didn't really get played out until the end of the following year. At that point Kobashi was already pushed up into the TC mix, and was effectively #4 in the promotion as Hansen was moved off to the side, Gordy OD'd and Williams had the Narita Nightmare.

[jdw]

There's a difference between a crowd reaction and being a big star.

 

Sting got big crowd reactions in 1988; he wasn't a big star until 1990.

 

 

He and Lex were the top two babyfaces in JCP/WCW in 1988.

 

Jake wasn't one of the top two faces or heels in the WWF in 1986. Heck, we'd have to try to figure out when he was at that level in the WWF for any sustained period like Sting became in 1988.

[jdw]

I'm having trouble quoting now too, but getting back to Kobashi:

 

- I didn't say he should or would be the Ace, or even the Top Contender.

 

Kobashi in 1992 got into his first Budokan Main Event, opposite the biggest star in the company and paired with the biggest babyface of the entire decade for the company. This was four years after he debuted. Any ideas of how long it was after their debuts that Misawa and Kawada got their first Budokan Main Event? Or when Kawada got his first that *wasn't* an accident like the final match of 1988?

 

Kobashi got a hell of a push for his age and standing in 1992 and 1993. He main evented two of the six Budokan's in 1993, and was in the semi in two of the others with high profile singles matches that spotlighted him more than his opponents.

 

 

- There's no rule in AJPW or otherwise that being "a" contender is the same as being the only contender. This isn't the 1994-95 WWF women's division--Kawada can be the main rival and Kobashi can still be seen as a contender.

 

 

He was a contender in 1994. He wasn't in 1993, where he was getting elevated up into being Misawa partner and getting the tag titles.

 

All Parv and I and Chad, to some degree, are saying is that Kobashi's run to the top was slower than it would have been in almost any other promotion. Even if Choshu was booking the company and held off just as long in putting the TC on him, he'd doubtless have gotten those trademark Choshu upsets over the top dogs earlier.

 

 

 

Kobashi's first TC was in 1994, six years after his debut.

 

Mutoh debuted in 1984, about three and a half years before Kobashi. Mutoh's first IWGP challenge was in 1992, 8 years after his debut.

 

Chono got his first IWGP challenge in May 1991, more than six years after his debut.

 

Sasaki debuted in 1986. His first IWGP challenge was at the end of 1993, seven years after his debut.

 

Misawa debuted in 1981. He didn't challenge for the promotion's top title (Int'l or Triple Crown) until 1990.

 

Kawada debuted in 1982. His first challenge of the top title was in 1991.

 

So who got challenges quicker than Kobashi?

 

Days

1672 Taue

1696 Hashimoto (tourney final) / 1846 (first IWGP challenge)

2381 Kobashi

2429 Chono

2781 Mutoh

2857 Sasaki

3262 Misawa

3307 Kawada

 

Well...

 

Basically Hash, who was famous for getting an early push ahead of his generation. And of course Taue, who got it as a bone because his direct peer and rival (Kawada) had just pulled his second. Taue needed it to keep up with his rival, and both of them were ahead of Kobashi in the pecking order.

 

One can say that some of those people who took longer to get their first title shot weren't as over as Kobashi. Sure, Sasaki wasn't, though he was Choshu's boy and it's saying something that Choshu made him wait longer than Baba made Sasaki wait. Even more telling that Baba put the belt on Kobashi quicker than Choshu put it on his boy:

 

3071 Kobashi

4214 Sasaki

 

It took Kobashi three less years to get the belt.

 

What the hell, here's how many days from debut that it took those guys to win their promotion's top prize for the first time:

 

2872 Mutoh

3065 Taue

3071 Kobashi

3306 Hashimoto

4019 Misawa

4214 Sasaki

4401 Kawada

5055 Chono (IWGP)

 

The story always was that Mutoh won his title "early" because Chono just got the NWA title and Misawa was highly likely to get the TC later in the month. Choshu beating Baba to the punch.

 

Anyway, other than Mutoh's odd win, and again Taue as senior to Kobashi getting the first bit at the TC before being the one to put over Kobashi, it's pretty clear that other bookers went as long in putting over top guys as Baba did with Kobashi.

 

No, there is no special rule. But I walked through this several years ago (or was it a decade and a half ago) when people claimed Kobashi was slow in getting the push. He actually was *faster* than the majority of his peers. The only one who was consistently quicker was his fellow Baba-mate, Taue.

 

I'd be happy if people want to bag on Baba pushing Taue too hard and quick.

[jdw]

I love the Matsunaga Brothers being a 10 on the "Money" scale.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

There's a difference between a crowd reaction and being a big star.

 

Sting got big crowd reactions in 1988; he wasn't a big star until 1990.

 

 

He and Lex were the top two babyfaces in JCP/WCW in 1988.

 

Jake wasn't one of the top two faces or heels in the WWF in 1986. Heck, we'd have to try to figure out when he was at that level in the WWF for any sustained period like Sting became in 1988.

 

 

If you read on you'll see I meant 87 rather than 88.

 

I was specifically thinking of the period when he got that big reaction during the 6-man.

[JerryvonKramer]

Also, I have to ask a few questions about the initial rankings:

 

- Where did Bill Watts not have mastery over his crowd? What is the difference between an 8 and a 10?

- How does 80s Vince get a 10 for mastery over his crowd during the same period when Watts' cards tended to be more heated from top to bottom?

- How does 90s Vince get a 10 for talent spotting? He let Hogan, Savage and Piper go at a time when they all had plenty left in the tank. He had failed experiments with Luger and Diesel.

- Why is mastery over crowd so low for Dusty and Crockett?

- Eric Bischoff turned a $55m net profit in 1998, which I believe is still the most profitable year a wrestling company has ever had. I realize he had money losing years too, but how do you come up with 2 in that category? Surely, having the single most profitable year in wrestling history has to count for more than a 2, right? It's especially something I don't understand when Heyman comes out higher in that category.

Will do my best to answer these.

 

 

- Where did Bill Watts not have mastery over his crowd? What is the difference between an 8 and a 10?

 

1992

 

- How does 80s Vince get a 10 for mastery over his crowd during the same period when Watts' cards tended to be more heated from top to bottom?

 

It's close. As I mentioned. Watts's 92 is factored into a composite rating. I feel like Watts made more meaningful cards and feuds, but every single guy on the WWF roster above about Sam Houston level feels very over in that period. WWF Koko B. Ware seems more over to me than Mid-South Terry Taylor.

 

- How does 90s Vince get a 10 for talent spotting? He let Hogan, Savage and Piper go at a time when they all had plenty left in the tank. He had failed experiments with Luger and Diesel.

 

He gets a 10 for the number of stars he made in that era which are so many that wrestling is only just now recovering from their stranglehold.

 

For every failed Luger experiment, there's a HHH or Kane.

 

It reminds me of when Sir Alex Ferguson ripped apart his first double-winning side, selling people like Andrei Kanchelskis, Paul Ince, and Mark Hughes, star players at the time. But it allowed youngsters like Gary Neville, Paul Scholes and David Beckham to come through and become stars. Kanchelskis, Ince and Hughes still had plenty of years left in them, but Ferguson had a longer term plan.

 

Vince did something similar. I'd like to think that this is the first time Ferguson and Vince have been compared in this way. But the ability to break up winning teams and rebuild them over a long period is something they have in common.

 

Football fans are probably less petulant than wrestling fans, so Fergie gets total respect, whereas all anyone seems to do is shit on Vince.

 

- Why is mastery over crowd so low for Dusty and Crockett?

 

Simply put because I can think of many occasions when crowds reacted in ways they weren't meant to. In general, I think the Crockett crowds were snarkier and worse behaved than most promotions, especially when they tried to run Chicago, and their Baltimore cards. Dusty was booed a lot towards the end. I've seen the Fantastics booed. I've seen the Rock n Rolls booed. I've seen Steamboat booed. I've seen Flair cheered as a heel countless times.

 

It wasn't their strong suit in my view.

 

- Eric Bischoff turned a $55m net profit in 1998, which I believe is still the most profitable year a wrestling company has ever had. I realize he had money losing years too, but how do you come up with 2 in that category? Surely, having the single most profitable year in wrestling history has to count for more than a 2, right? It's especially something I don't understand when Heyman comes out higher in that category.

 

I think I gave Heyman too high a rating.

 

Bichoff gets a 2 because he put people on stupid huge guaranteed contracts and ended up running the thing into the ground.

 

The 2 is a recognition of a brief firework that fizzed and crackled and dazzled for moment, but it was just a moment.

[jdw]

 

 

There's a difference between a crowd reaction and being a big star.

 

Sting got big crowd reactions in 1988; he wasn't a big star until 1990.

 

 

He and Lex were the top two babyfaces in JCP/WCW in 1988.

 

Jake wasn't one of the top two faces or heels in the WWF in 1986. Heck, we'd have to try to figure out when he was at that level in the WWF for any sustained period like Sting became in 1988.

 

 

If you read on you'll see I meant 87 rather than 88.

 

I was specifically thinking of the period when he got that big reaction during the 6-man.

 

 

Some of us remember what happened *right after* that six-man tag:

 

http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/jcp87.htm

 

Starrcade 87 - Chicago, IL - UIC Pavilion - November 26, 1987 (8,000; sell out)

Pay-per-view bouts:

Michael Hayes, Jimmy Garvin (w/ Precious), & Sting fought Eddie Gilbert, Rick Steiner, & Larry Zbyszko (w/ Baby Doll) to a 15-minute time-limit draw; the match ended as Hayes had Gilbert covered with a sunset flip; after the match, the crowd chanted "Eddie sucks" at Gilbert

 

JCP @ Monroe, LA - December 1, 1987

TV taping:

Worldwide - 12/5/87 - Missy then spoke with Sting about the upcoming Bunkhouse Stampede matches, during which Sting said he wanted a shot at Flair (Missy's Worldwide debut);

 

JCP @ Charlotte, NC - Coliseum - December 6, 1987 (matinee)

NWA World Champion Ric Flair pinned Sting

 

JCP @ Greensboro, NC - Coliseum - December 12, 1987 (6,000)

TV taping:

NWA World Champion Ric Flair pinned Sting; only 16 minutes of the match were shown before the show ended

 

JCP @ Cincinatti, OH - December 13, 1987

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Sting

 

JCP @ Philadelphia, PA - Civic Center - December 26, 1987

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Sting

 

JCP @ St. Louis, MO - Arena - December 28, 1987 (matinee)

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Sting

 

JCP @ Chicago, IL - UIC Pavilion - December 30, 1987

NWA World Champion Ric Flair defeated Sting

 

 

At the very next Worldwide taping less than week later.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just think, if that had been Baba, he wouldn't have got his shot against Flair until 1991!

[soup23]

 

He challenged for the Triple Crown in September of 1994. That is 2.5 years after the nuclear heat that is seen in the 5/25/92 tag. That is a good bit of patience all for a Triple Crown challenge against a rival making his first defense. What is a point of comparison for someone else that over that had to wait that long for a shot?

 

That would be an upper mid-card match in Kikuchi's hometown.

 

Kawada got heat in his All Asia matches in 1988 and 1989. Look up when he got his first TC title challenge.

 

Or look at the spunky heat Mutoh got in the Summer Night Fever match in 1987. He didn't get an IWGP Title match until *1992*. Grant, he was in the US for a chunk of that time. But he started his second run with the IWGP Tag title in April 1990, had that great heat in the title change in November of that year, had the great heat against Vader and Chono the following August... and still had to wait until May 1992 to get his first title shot. And Mutoh was a much bigger star in 1990-92 than Kobashi was.

 

I think people are projecting where Kobashi was in May 1992. He was here:

 

Jumbo

Hansen

Misawa

Gordy

Williams

Kawada

Taue

Kobashi

 

He was 8th in the company. He was 3rd on his own *team*. His lead partner (Misawa) had all of 3 challenges by that point in the 4 years the title existed. Misawa lead partner (Kawada) just got his first challenge the prior October. Taue hadn't gotten his first challenge year, and he was Jumbo's lead partner.

 

All Japan's business was hot in 1992-94 as it had been in 1990-91. They would just start the Misawa-Kawada rivalry for the TC later that year at the Anniversary Show, at a point when those two hadn't even broken up their team. Misawa-Kawada was hot through 1994, and didn't really get played out until the end of the following year. At that point Kobashi was already pushed up into the TC mix, and was effectively #4 in the promotion as Hansen was moved off to the side, Gordy OD'd and Williams had the Narita Nightmare.

 

 

I think you are severely undercutting how hot Kobashi was with the crowd in 1992 from quite frankly people that have watched the footage more recently. People have gotten nice reactions and good heat throughout history. There are very few crowds with the poise and electricity of Kobashi in that 1992 match.

 

Onto Muto, you yourself talk about how much time he spent in the US and there is also the G-1 Climax run in 1991 where he is clearly positioned as one of the signature men in the promotion.

[ChuckScumm]

How would Al Tomko rate?