The Cancellation of Jim Cornette

[PhilTLL]

There was also the Captain Lou run with the tag team champion Headshrinkers. Granted, it later included the very stupid idea of "The Barbarian can't wear boots."

[PeteF3]

Can't believe I forgot Albano. His first babyface run was an unqualified success.

[Big Pete]

Alright I listened to Omega's shoot with Brian Meyers.

Keep in mind, the format of the shoot appears to be him shooting the shit with his buddies so stories are clearly being embellished to make them more entertaining. Omega basically portrays Johnny Ace as a love-struck teenager who has a huge crush on Kenny.

Anyways, according to Omega on Day 3 of the camp, Harley Race revealed that the grand prize wasn't a spot in NOAH, but actually the WWE. He brought in Johnny Ace and tried to promote Keith Walker and Dakota but Harley was unimpressed with both but took an instant liking to Omega because he resembled Brian Pillman. They then had to work a practice match where Kenny was paired off with Keith Walker. Keith Walker ate Kenny up during the entire match until Lauranaitis intervened and criticised Walker. He then made Walker switch out with Dakota who worked that junior heavyweight style.

It's here Kenny claims where he busted Dakota's nose. Kenny called a back elbow and Dakota tried to take an inside out bump off of it, but ended up busting his nose when he fall onto the mat. Harley then called a halt to the match and tried to criticise Omega but Lauranaitis called Harley out. Kenta Kobashi who was also there sided with Lauranaitis and supposedly argued with Johnny that he wanted to sign Omega.

What doesn't add up is that the trainer who write into Cornette's show claimed the mix-up happened on the first day when Omega botched a basic drill. That's why Omega was sent to the beginner's group before Trevor Murdoch brought him back to the main group to work matches.

It's amazing how different the tone of the story was. In the RF shoot, Omega doesn't even talk about Johnny Ace and skips straight from being bullied by Harley and swindled of his time and money straight into the hell that was the Bill DeMott regime.

[PhilTLL]

1 hour ago, PeteF3 said:

Can't believe I forgot Albano. His first babyface run was an unqualified success.

Oh hell, I completely forgot about the Lauper angle, the US Express and Bulldogs and etc. Clearly I'm hazier on that era.

[Laz]

18 hours ago, MoS said:

Big guys with muscle are not necessarily strong, and strength and size are different. Matt Jackson's gimmick however is not that he is really strong; nothing else in his working style lends itself to that. It's what makes him doing Northern lights suplexes so jarring. Given that no one includes that in his highlights package, it's just a vanity spot, like when HBK would go toe to toe with much bigger guys for no reason. 

Aye to this. Taz literally built his gimmick off of being a street tough who could pop off a suplex from any angle, and he was 5'9"; similarly, Perry Saturn is 5'10" and largely worked the same schtick. The size isn't as important as the moveset matching the gimmick, and either Buck being some super strong suplex machine goes in direct contrast of the gimmick they've worked for over a decade (of being quick and agile, replacing strength with speed).

To put it in RPG terms, you don't act like your rogue is the tank unless that's how they're built, and the Bucks aren't built like that. Synergy is important. 

18 hours ago, El-P said:

...Corny is pissed for stuff that happened 15, 20 years ago...pro-wrestling isn't very punk-rock at all. It's like it's 1978 all over again and a bunch of aging, balding uncool guys (ie Corny, in this case) are whining about those scrawny looking kids who don't even know how to play their guitar because they haven't been taught properly and can't for the life of them play a nice solo. 

1. Irony, because...

2. If pro wrestling were punk rock, it would be relishing in the older guard calling it an "outlaw carnie mud show." Captain Sensible's nickname was ironic as he would cause as big a ruckus as he could at all times, Jello Biafra ran for mayor of San Francisco just so he could mock Dianne Feinstein to her face, Glenn Danzig and Henry Rollins would chase glam rockers down the street, the Sex Pistols infamously followed the Queen's barge on her birthday playing a song critical of her, etc. Punk was about embracing the filthier side of civilization and accepting it. If there is a "punk rock" side to modern pro wrestling, it's found in companies like GCW and talents like G-Raver, who try all they can to upset the status quo, and not in a company with two hours of prime time television a week on a major cable channel.

3. I'd liken it more to the tech/prog bands that are capable of insane speed and precision while playing intricate rhythms and scales, but suffer when it comes to actual songwriting or even playing basic music. There's an episode of the show Metalocalypse where the band tries to learn how to play the blues (so that they could summon a demon at a crossroads and become even more famous), but they can't strum a simple chord and burst into sweep arpeggios whenever they try. THAT is modern wrestling.

4. Double irony: saying Corny is stuck on things that happened 15-20 years ago...and then literally referencing something from 43 years ago. And not even a particularly great year for punk, at that.

[El-P]

9 minutes ago, Laz said:

2. If pro wrestling were punk rock, it would be relishing in the older guard calling it an "outlaw carnie mud show."

They actually did, in BTE. Several times.

10 minutes ago, Laz said:

3. I'd liken it more to the tech/prog bands that are capable of insane speed and precision while playing intricate rhythms and scales, but suffer when it comes to actual songwriting or even playing basic music.

No, because some of the best long-term psychology and storytelling in pro-wrestling matches has probably happened during the last 5 years. 

11 minutes ago, Laz said:

4. Double irony: saying Corny is stuck on things that happened 15-20 years ago...and then literally referencing something from 43 years ago. And not even a particularly great year for punk, at that.

Wait, no, the irony is that I don't give a flying fuck about punk rock nor what was the best year for punk rock 43 years ago or whatever. I was just referencing a period where old fuckers complained about the younger generation because "they don't know how to..." and "they don't respect the guys who paved the way before then" and whatever. Really, if you really wanted to make a serious point about it and drop the "irony" on my ass, you could have referenced the fact that punk, like it's been said in Retromania, the excellent book by Simon Reynolds, in itself had a very reactionary aspect to it, in that in many ways it was a move "back to the essence of the old rock'n'roll from the 50's". So anyway. 

It's still quite interesting that never before I've experienced such a huge pull-back from an entire generation toward the following generation. Maybe because I had to reach a certain age to actually witness an entire generation go by, so that the difference would be significant enough. Like I said, can't wait for the millenials to get old and shit on those zoomers who can't work and do whatever they will instead of playing video games like real pro-wrestlers used to do in the good ol' days of Kenny Omega & the Young Bucks, before WWE was sold to Disney and Triple H became president of the USA.

[Log]

23 hours ago, El-P said:

Except there's no reason why not. No reason that pertains to real life, because big guy with muscle doesn't equal strong (nor tough); no reason that pertains to pro-wrestling as basically producing signs that are understood (and accepted) by an audience. Matt Jackson does a double nothern light suplex and it works all time (in term of execution, bumping and selling by the opponents and reaction by the audience). Therefore, there's no reason at all to say he shouldn't do this or that, unless you're applying a very limitating grid of what you *think* *should* be done in the context of a pro-wrestling match, which is what Cornette (and others) do all the time.

Except it's wrong, because there's no rule whatsoever of what *should* be done. What people think are "rules" (like : a big guy should always work this way, a tag team match should be only worked this way) are basically just old habits and tropes that people think are best, usually because that's what they grew up on but also because they attribute false values (including "moral" ones) to them for strictly subjective reasons.

I absolutely don’t think there is a set of rules for what must happen in a wrestling match. I honestly don’t know how you took my comment that far, but ok. 
 

I understand how strength works. I’ve played sports and lifted weights for over 20 years. I’ve personally known many guys that you would never expect to be strong based on looks. I’ve seen those guys do shocking things. That has nothing to do with what I said. 
 

I think it’s important that a wrestler wrestles to their gimmick/character/whatever you want to call it. I don’t think that’s an outdated thought. Kenny Omega’s character is that he’s a flashy, show stealer type of guy, so his style works with that. Moxley is a brawler and a fighter so he works like that. Like I said, I like the Bucks. I just feel like that Matt’s power spots are out of place with his character. 
 

For the record, I take offense to you implying that I “attribute false values (including "moral" ones) to them for strictly subjective reasons” based on the fact that I said I don’t like a wrestler doing a particular move. You don’t fucking know me, so you need to shut the fuck up with that shit, ok?

[El-P]

15 minutes ago, Log said:

I absolutely don’t think there is a set of rules for what must happen in a wrestling match. I honestly don’t know how you took my comment that far, but ok. 

For the record, I take offense to you implying that I “attribute false values (including "moral" ones) to them for strictly subjective reasons” baed on the fact that I said I don’t like a wrestler doing a particular move. You don’t fucking know me, so you need to shut the fuck up with that shit, ok?

I took your comment and from there made broader statements about pro-wrestling in general. It had nothing to do with you personally. The "moral" values comment stems from @Matt D talking earlier in the thread about Shawn Micheals using his pro-wrestling understandings for "evil" reasons, which is, infact, a moral judgment.

[El-P]

33 minutes ago, Log said:

I think it’s important that a wrestler wrestles to their gimmick/character/whatever you want to call it. I don’t think that’s an outdated thought. Kenny Omega’s character is that he’s a flashy, show stealer type of guy, so his style works with that. Moxley is a brawler and a fighter so he works like that. Like I said, I like the Bucks. I just feel like that Matt’s power spots are out of place with his character. 

I don't agree and I explained why. Assigning a worker to a reducive view of what he's "supposed" to do based on a gimmick/character is a dated view to me (BTW, it's also true of gimmick matches). Plus it really never worked that way as soon as you get into "great workers" territory. Like for instance, the idea that the heels are not the ones who should do the most exciting moves and that those should be reserved for the babyfaces, which is something I heard a billion times. Reality is, if you take for instance the most classic tag team US feud ever, which is used basically as the greatest staple for how "tag team wrestling should be worked", the MX vs Rock'n'Roll Express, well, the fact is the MX had by far the flashiest, most impressive and awe-inducing offense of the two teams, mostly thanks to Bobby Eaton, who was outworking every babyface he ever met, including Ricky Morton, in term of doing cool moves and spots. Again, broader statement about pro-wrestling in general. 

[Log]

But the Midnights’ characters were that they were flashy heels who did cool moves, so it fits. I’m not saying that a wrestler has to be defined by their heel/face alignment or their look as to what they do. Brian Cage’s character is that he’s a big muscle bound guy who does moves that smaller guys can pull off. He wrestles like that. Some people don’t like it, but it’s consistent with his character. Taz was a smaller dude who threw guys around. That’s his character and that’s how he wrestled. Matt Jackson’s character has never been presented (as I’ve seen) as a powerhouse. That’s why it’s jarring to me when he does power moves. 
 

I guess the bigger question is, as a wrestler, what is the point of having a character if you don’t wrestle like that character?

I’m not making a blanket statement that ALL HEELS MUST DO “X” or ALL BIG MEN MUST DO “Y”. I’m just saying that a wrestler should be consistent with their character. That really goes for any medium. Movie characters, tv characters, etc. 

[Matt D]

18 minutes ago, El-P said:

I took your comment and from there made broader statements about pro-wrestling in general. It had nothing to do with you personally. The "moral" values comment stems from @Matt D talking earlier in the thread about Shawn Micheals using his pro-wrestling understandings for "evil" reasons, which is, infact, a moral judgment.

It was a turn of phrase, old chum. I meant that instead of using it for the greater good of the match, he was actively harming the quality of the match.

[El-P]

21 minutes ago, Log said:

But the Midnights’ characters were that they were flashy heels who did cool moves, so it fits. I’m not saying that a wrestler has to be defined by their heel/face alignment or their look as to what they do. Brian Cage’s character is that he’s a big muscle bound guy who does moves that smaller guys can pull off. He wrestles like that. Some people don’t like it, but it’s consistent with his character. Taz was a smaller dude who threw guys around. That’s his character and that’s how he wrestled. 

Understood, and I agree above these above points.

21 minutes ago, Log said:

Matt Jackson’s character has never been presented (as I’ve seen) as a powerhouse. That’s why it’s jarring to me when he does power moves. 

If he does power moves, he's *actually* presented as being able to do them.  I mean, to me it's as simple as that. For instance, when Okada tried and tried and tried to get his damn Cobra Clutch over during last G1 and it was obvious it killed the pace of the matches and the crowd did not go along, to me that was a mistake. Matt has done those nothern lights forever, they're part of his repertoire, to me it does look pretty good and is a fun spot... I mean, at some point, the spots define the worker (or as you'd put it, the character/gimmick), not the other way around. If you *actually* can't do jackshit, your best shot is to be a no-selling monster. Which is why the whole "he plays his role well" argument never flew with me, to me it was a defense of mediocre or even crappy workers who did not do much at all because, well, they just weren't very good otherwise.

[El-P]

4 minutes ago, Matt D said:

It was a turn of phrase, old chum. I meant that instead of using it for the greater good of the match, he was actively harming the quality of the match.

I know it was, but still, there is a moral judgement here because for you, it did harm the quality of the matches (that is up for debate or simply taste, but there you go). Therefore it was *bad*, but not *bad* from an execution standpoint (something you don't seem to care about as much as I do), bad because, as you or someone else put it, it was "vanity" work from Michaels.

[Log]

@El-P, I’m a little confused. From what I can tell, you have opinions about how you’d like wrestling to work and you consider them to be “correct”. Others (myself, maybe Matt D) have differing opinions about how we’d like wrestling to work and they are “wrong”.  Is that it?  Seems a bit Cornette-ish to me.  Am I wrong?

[El-P]

10 minutes ago, Log said:

@El-P, I’m a little confused. For. What I can tell, you have opinions about how you’d like wrestling to work and you consider them to be “correct”. Others (myself, maybe Matt D) have differing opinions about how we’d like wrestling to work and they are “wrong”.  Is that it?  

No.

I just disagree with the idea that X doing Y is inherently wrong because it "wouldn't fit his character". If it's done well, if it works as part of the flux of a match, and if it's fun to watch to boot, have at it. Matt Jackson doing his nothern light double suplex never bothered me in the slighest, and why should it.

One thing that bothers me every time however for instance, is a spot you force on an opponent who would never do it otherwise because you want to counter/bump off it aka "You Can't Powerbomb Kidman" (also know as "I'm Ric Flair, gorilla press slam me please !").

[Matt D]

First of all, I'm not entirely sure that all of this is connected to your central thesis, but you're having fun as Steve Austin in one of those late 90s Rumbles at least.

Second,

23 hours ago, El-P said:

BTW, my defense of Matt really was about something I feel very strongly about pro-wrestling in general...

You're just doing a pretty poor job of defending me. Just saying.

[El-P]

Just now, Matt D said:

You're just doing a pretty poor job of defending me. Just saying.

I will never defend you for pimping Demolition so hard in the past. NEVER.

[Log]

17 minutes ago, El-P said:

No.

I just disagree with the idea that X doing Y is inherently wrong because it "wouldn't fit his character". If it's done well, if it works as part of the flux of a match, and if it's fun to watch to boot, have at it. Matt Jackson doing his nothern light double suplex never bothered me in the slighest, and why should it.

One thing that bothers me every time however for instance, is a spot you force on an opponent who would never do it otherwise because you want to counter/bump off it aka "You Can't Powerbomb Kidman" (also know as "I'm Ric Flair, gorilla press slam me please !").

I agree totally with your second paragraph. 
 

To be clear, I just said I don’t like Jackson doing that spot. I never got into any “inherently wrong” talk. You did that. I said I didn’t like a spot that one particular wrestler does and you took that to mean that I have these hyper-specific ideas of what each wrestler should do. 
 

I like lots of bands that I think have a shitty song or two. Doesn’t make me hate the bands entire discography.  I like the Bucks, but I’d like them better if Matt dropped that spot. That’s it. 

[El-P]

25 minutes ago, Log said:

To be clear, I just said I don’t like Jackson doing that spot. I never got into any “inherently wrong” talk. You did that. I said I didn’t like a spot that one particular wrestler does and you took that to mean that I have these hyper-specific ideas of what each wrestler should do. 

Again, the talk about Matt Jackson doing that spot which seems to bother some people on this thread just made me react and talk about a bunch of stuff I had in my head.

I probably should not have quoted you specifically, as you took it as I was replying strictly to what *you* said (and even personal attacks, which really were the furthest thing from my mind, I mean why would I do that ?), when really like I said it was much more broader thoughts on the matter. Sorry about that.

[Log]

20 minutes ago, El-P said:

Again, the talk about Matt Jackson doing that spot which seems to bother some people on this thread just made me react and talk about a bunch of stuff I had in my head.

I probably should not have quoted you specifically, as you took it as I was replying strictly to what *you* said (and even personal attacks, which really were the furthest thing from my mind, I mean why would I do that ?), when really like I said it was much more broader thoughts on the matter. Sorry about that.

No problem. You’re good people. I’m a little cranky today. 
When it comes down to it, I think you and I have more in common as far as our likes in wrestling than we disagree on. 

[El-P]

7 minutes ago, Log said:

No problem. You’re good people. I’m a little cranky today. 
When it comes down to it, I think you and I have more in common as far as our likes in wrestling than we disagree on. 

Thanks. I'm pretty tired also, so I have no doubt my ranting got confusing. Yes, we probably do agree more than we disagree.

And really, re-reading my first post, yeah, it was bad judgement on my part, I should actually have made another thread and started with "This talk about Matt Jackson in the Cornette thread made me think about the issue of doing spots "oustide" the realm of you character/gimmick" or something. It's just me being both lazy and impulsive. 

[sek69]

To be honest, my issues with Corny are less him criticizing the Bucks for doing suplexes and more him going from being vaguely to specifically sexist/racist/homophobic in his rants toward most folks who don't wrestle the way he likes. 

 

[Log]

15 minutes ago, sek69 said:

To be honest, my issues with Corny are less him criticizing the Bucks for doing suplexes and more him going from being vaguely to specifically sexist/racist/homophobic in his rants toward most folks who don't wrestle the way he likes. 

 

Agreed. The stuff with Jade is a great example. I agree with him that she is not ready for the spot she’s in. But then he gets all racist (Shelton Benjamin’s body) and misogynistic (she must be fucking someone) about it and dammit. Now you’ve lost me. 
 

 

[Robert S]

I haven't seen that Matt Jackson spot, but how does it compare to HBK easily throwing out Vader and Yokozuna at the same time at Royal Rumble 96? (to turn this thread towards something we can all agree on: hating 1996 babyface Shawn Michaels)

[sek69]

18 minutes ago, Robert S said:

I haven't seen that Matt Jackson spot, but how does it compare to HBK easily throwing out Vader and Yokozuna at the same time at Royal Rumble 96? (to turn this thread towards something we can all agree on: hating 1996 babyface Shawn Michaels)

It really isn't different at all, it's a smaller guy doing something that they "shouldn't" based on their size/gimmick/whatever, but people like Corny just get irrationally mad at anything the Elite guys do.