Comments that don't warrant a thread - Part 4

[MoS]

lol yeah, Tony was literally reminiscing with Mike Simpervieve about all the discussions and arguments they used to have on DVDVR 20 years ago. Dude is most definitely is one of us, for good and for bad 

[Matt D]

28 minutes ago, MoS said:

Can you at least link us to what you said please

Yeah, I can do that. It's probably not what you'd think (as in I didn't focus on Henry).

http://deathvalleydriver.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8985-february-2021-discussion-of-wrestling/&do=findComment&comment=1076306

[El-P]

16 minutes ago, MoS said:

lol yeah, Tony was literally reminiscing with Mike Simpervieve about all the discussions and arguments they used to have on DVDVR 20 years ago. Dude is most definitely is one of us, for good and for bad 

On one hand, I would LOVE to see if I had interactions with Coach Tony K (I believe I was still kind of a regular at that time). On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want to re-read posts by 26 years old me. 

[Log]

I think I may have messaged with Kahn on DVDVR at some point.  He went to University of Illinois at the time and may have mentioned that. I'm an alum, so I think I shot him a message saying hi or something.  

When you say he's "one of us", @El-P, that really goes for me.  He probably discovered a lot of this stuff while he was in college in Champaign/Urbana like I did (even though I was there a couple years before him).

[MoS]

2 hours ago, Matt D said:

Yeah, I can do that. It's probably not what you'd think (as in I didn't focus on Henry).

http://deathvalleydriver.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8985-february-2021-discussion-of-wrestling/&do=findComment&comment=1076306

I totally understand the spirit of what you were saying. On the other hand though, I think the Hart Foundation is like, the most overrated tag team in WWF history ever, which means that while I loved the character work and personality that Anvil brought to the matches, his actual in-ring work was absolutely terrible. It's very damning in my opinion cuz that meant Bret was carrying on his shoulders the work part of the matches, but he himself had zero kind of captivating character or personality, so it made the matches quite boring. I think the first time Bret got a defined character he could focus on and sink his teeth into, was with the Piper and Davey matches in 1992. His in-ring work became a lot more memorable after that

[El-P]

33 minutes ago, MoS said:

while I loved the character work and personality that Anvil brought to the matches, his actual in-ring work was absolutely terrible. 

He was doing some very dynamic power spots, including some damn slingshot shoulder tackle which looked incredible for its time. Some of his stuff did not look the greatest, but one thing about Anvil is that his work did not look like anyone else, which was a rarity then and even more now, and what he lacked in actual polish he brought in intensity, which fit what he could do (not a lot, granted). Of course I'd never say he was even near the level of Bret, including in the mid 80's, but he did brought some good shit to the table in big matches too (not to mention squash matches where he was fun throwing guys around). I dunno, I always had a soft spot for the Anvil.

[sek69]

Anvil was a good counterbalance to Bret, I always enjoyed tag teams that were a power guy and a smaller wrestler or flyer.

[NintendoLogic]

I'll copy what I wrote at DVDVR: I've seen my fair share of Hart Foundation matches and rank a few of them among my favorite matches of all time, and I consider the idea that Neidhart contributed at least much to the team as Bret to be thoroughly worthy of derision. More often than not, he was either actively detracting from matches or clearly being hidden so he wouldn't drag things down too much.

[sek69]

I don't think anyone would seriously claim Anvil contributed as much as Bret, clearly there was a difference in talent there. The idea that Anvil was completely worthless is also worthy of derision IMO.  He had his role to play and did it well. 

[khawk20]

7 minutes ago, sek69 said:

Anvil was a good counterbalance to Bret, I always enjoyed tag teams that were a power guy and a smaller wrestler or flyer.

You must have been a Power and Glory fan too. First team I thought of when you brought up the Power guy/smaller wrestler (although Roma was getting bigger by the year as I recall)

That tag team should have had a better run than they did, and I think they would have had they been created a couple of years earlier.

[sek69]

1 minute ago, khawk20 said:

You must have been a Power and Glory fan too. First team I thought of when you brought up the Power guy/smaller wrestler (although Roma was getting bigger by the year as I recall)

That tag team should have had a better run than they did, and I think they would have had they been created a couple of years earlier.

Actually I was, come to mention it.  The visual contrast of one guy doing all the fancy rasslin/flying while the other guy is just a tank that rolls over people always works for me.

[NintendoLogic]

7 minutes ago, sek69 said:

I don't think anyone would seriously claim Anvil contributed as much as Bret, clearly there was a difference in talent there.

Brother Matt D might. "Moreover, if you actually watch the matches, you see that Neidhart brought quite a bit to the table in those matches and I think someone could easily make an argument that he brought as much as Bret, if not more so. I'm not sure I'd go out of my way to make the argument, but it's not a crazy argument if you actually watch the footage and don't just rely on either memories or the evidence of Bret's later singles career vs Neidhart's 90s work. It's certainly not an argument to be dismissed with a mocking laugh."

[Matt D]

I said that I wasn't going to make the argument. I just said that someone could make it, and yeah, probably make it easily if they broke down match by match. Would I buy it? Maybe not, but let them make the argument. There's one to make there.

My argument and my point was basically three-fold (and yes, NL can disagree, that's fine).

1. Anvil brought more to the table than he gets credit for, and he doesn't get the credit half because people haven't gone back and revisited the footage and half because of workrate dogmatism (But again only half as he still brings something to the table there).
2. Actually, those Hart Foundation matches don't hold up as well as they get credit for and a good chunk of that IS Bret, so the level that Neidhart has to rise to is less than what you'd otherwise think.
3. Someone can make the argument and they shouldn't be laughed out of the room. They should be allowed to make the argument if they think they can back it up. The fact someone would just accept that as dogma and look down at people who have done the legwork and want to voice an opinion on that is bullshit.

[Matt D]

Double posting to add one additional point. And this is why I didn't post that here and posted something else here instead.

DVDVR is not PWO. You want to argue that the Faces of Fear are the best team of the 90s on DVDVR? Great. Go for it. Back your shit up. People will engage and 80% will engage positively if you back your shit up well. PWO has a different feel and a different attitude and that's totally ok. I post a little differently in one place than the other, and I have deep affection for both boards. I'm doing reviews of 89 AJPW that I watch while I'm on a treadmill over there right now. (http://deathvalleydriver.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8657-matt-watches-1989-ajpw-on-a-treadmill/#comments) I'm writing little reviews. Were I to write them here, they'd have a lot more rigor to them. You can make that argument on DVDVR and I think you should be allowed to and not laughed out of the room. If you do it here, it'll be a slightly higher bar. That's ok.

[NintendoLogic]

Don't get me wrong. I think there is value in trying to engage with a worldview largely alien from one's own, and I'll give any argument made in good faith at least a cursory hearing. But if someone watches Hart Foundation matches and concludes that Neidhart is the straw stirring the drink, the gulf between us in how we watch and evaluate wrestling is such that any fruitful dialogue on the subject is likely impossible.

[El-P]

52 minutes ago, Matt D said:

workrate dogmatism

Such a thing doesn't exist and has never existed. Really. Even more than 20 years ago you could read stuff like "great workrate but poor psychology" for some insane spotfests. Using such a term is akin to saying "lulz mOvEZ", it's a way to disqualify any counter-argument because "Oh, but you care too much about the moves, like the consensus always does.". 

Plus, what Neidhart actually was mostly bringing was a bunch of exciting highspots, so yeah, moves indeed.

[Matt D]

3 minutes ago, El-P said:

Plus, what Neidhart actually was mostly bringing was a bunch of exciting highspots, so yeah, moves indeed.

I said that was only half of it for that exact reason. It’d be a misconception.

[El-P]

6 minutes ago, Matt D said:

I said that was only half of it for that exact reason. It’d be a misconception.

What would be a misconception ? That he would actually bring some shit to the table ? Because most people who think Neidhart brought nothing won't put him over for his "workrate" either. So I don't get your point here.

I say he did bring stuff to the table, and from my point of view, "workrate dogmatism" if such a thing existed (which it doesn't) would actually play in Neidhart's *favor*, not the other way around.

[Matt D]

3 minutes ago, El-P said:

What would be a misconception ? That he would actually bring some shit to the table ? Because most people who think Neidhart brought nothing won't put him over for his "workrate" either. So I don't get your point here.

I say he did bring stuff to the table, and from my point of view, "workrate dogmatism" if such a thing existed (which it doesn't) would actually play in Neidhart's *favor*, not the other way around.

It’s all there in my post. 

[Loss]

Selfishly, I want to know if Tony Khan knows who I am. I am just curious.

[El-P]

Ok. Well, "workrate dogmatism" doesn't exist.

Case in point, you seem to infer that half the the reason Neidhart doesn't get credit for his work is because people care too much about "workrate", when in fact I just put Neidhart's work over using very much a "workrate" argument.

Plus, the people who don't value his work probably have many different reasons for it, and just stating "oh, that's half because workrate dogmatism" doesn't constitute an argument at all, it just puts all the contradictors under one umbrella which disqualifies them because they, for some reason, defer to some dogma (which doesn't exist).

[El-P]

Tony Khan, if you read that message, have someone say "Self Conscious Epic on Dynamite". Thanks. I am an AEW stan, too.

[C.S.]

Yes, Bret was a world class talent. Yes, Bret was better than Anvil. However, Anvil brought a completely different style and dynamic to the team. Key word: team. To completely dismiss Anvil's contributions is pure ignorance to me. That contrast in styles is what made The Hart Foundation special and more special than a team consisting of Bret and [insert similar wrestler here] would be. Far too many fans have a very limited scope of what a "good worker" or "good work" is.

The New Foundation (Anvil and Owen) didn't last long, but they had the potential to be even better in-ring than the original Hart Foundation was IMO.

As for Faces of Fear being the best team of the '90s, well, I'll say they were the most underrated team of the '90s and leave it at that.

P.S. I wonder if Tony Khan wanted to post here but never got his membership approved. My second attempt a couple of years later - this account - was the one that got approved. The original one never did.

[MoS]

Wow, I seem to have started a discussion that does deserve a thread. Anyway, not to interrupt, but I GOT STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN TO WISH MY MOM A HAPPY BIRTHDAY AND I AM SO FUCKING HAPPY!! This made my mom's day!!!

 

 

[Boss Rock]

Awesome!