Race vs. Angle

[S.L.L.]

There was actually a lot of outright hostile stuff said about Cena in his first year or so with the company by many of the same people who praise him now. Dean Rasmussen outright called him the worst wrestler in the WWE. Kevin Cook, who went on to really like Cena, though I think he's pretending not to like him now like he used to do with Foley, said he was terrible and would never amount to anything. And while I was never as down on him as some others, I thought the people in early 2003 who were saying he would be the biggest star in wrestling one day were nuts.

 

By contrast, I don't remember a lot of anti-Angle stuff in '01 and '02. Remember him being pimped pretty heavily by the same guys who don't like him now. I think the dislike of his stuff from that period was retroactive. Actual Angle hate really started to manifest in '03, which makes sense, because that's when he was starting to really go downhill. Incidentally, that's also when Cena started making some real progress, and there started to be rumblings that maybe this Cena guy wasn't all that bad.

 

Anyway, I don't know if there's really a direct correlation between Angle haters and Cena fans other than Angle starting to stink around the same time Cena started to get good. But it's an obvious troll, so it's not like it matters, anyway.

[Loss]

Question: who were the main people that were pro-Angle to make him be ranked so high in a few DVDVR 500s?

[tomk]

I'm not sure.

 

He only shows up in the top ten once, in the DVDVR covering the six months before november 2002. I think Misawa injured Takayama in October 2002 keeping Takayama off the 500 (where he would have been #1). And part of the whole HOLY SHIT TAKAYAMA IS AMAZING! is:

 

http://the-w.com/thread.php/id=8312

 

Again, Takayama makes you believe in his opponents. Takayama fights for and out of German suplexes. It's amusing to see a single German be so meaningful when there must be thirty meaningless Germans in every Smackdown tag.

So the flaws of the worst of the Smackdown six stuff was already known.

 

On the other hand Summerslam 2002 opener opposite Rey is still one of my favorite Angle matches where it felt like Angle combined his bumping style and intricate reversals into real smart great rudo. But even then the comparison was to Marabunta and not Fuerza.

 

Still my guess is he had a body of matches during that six months that we liked.

Shocked that he's above Rey (although Rey was saddled with Edge for most of that period), but not surprised he made the top ten then.

[Kronos]

I also think the Race/Angle comparison is an intersting one. One thing Angle will never learn is that sometimes less is more.

Yeah I think that's the problem with a lot of guys working today. It's amazing how much I'd rather watch old Georgia or Mid Atlantic stuff over a lot of stuff today as a lot of the matches blend in together and become a blur of amazing moves.

 

I think Angle could have learned that but now he's in a position where he's the teacher instead of learning from better workers. So now he'll keep doing what he does.

 

I am completely in line with this one. I just received the newly-back-in-print ROH: Better Than Our Best. I have watched the Storm/Dragon match 3x because it tells a story between a good guy and a bad guy with a minimum of flashy moves. They go back and forth with skill and power, and the crowd gives them a deserved ovation. I loved it -- it's fast becoming one of my favorite ROH matches. In exchange, I was bored by the 6-man tag that everyone on the ROH boards told me I would love because it was just one spot after another. Was it cool? Absolutely. But maybe for the first time, I began to understand the criticism of such-and-so's match being simply a series of "spot-fests".

 

Lance Storm (and Bryan Danielson) proved that less is more, as far as I am concerned. Just your point. . .

[jdw]

How often is it no sold rather than slow sold?

 

 

John

Are we arguing that headrop at beginning of match while ignored long term contributes to vertigo making the crossbody more difficult?

I wasn't really arguing, as is probably clear from my lack of serious participation in the thread.

 

Simply asking a question.

 

Going back to what I wrote for some context:

 

 

And has been mentioned in this thread, it wasn't exclusive to Harley Race. Lawler half-ass sold a brainbuster from Terry Gordy. Funk's piledrivers were no sold a plenty in All Japan. I thik that in some areas the pildriver was death, and in others it was a transtition move.

We aren't talking about Harley Race throwing out a piledriver in a match and it not leading to a finish. We are talking about Race piledriving people on the floor in meaningless undercard matches and forcing the guy taking the move to no-sell it. Those things are pretty different, and it is as bad as IWA-MS rookies throwing burning hammers in openers.

 

How often does Harley do this spot?

 

How often is it no sold rather than slow sold?

 

 

John

Actually the first one is actually the key one - is this a regular Harley spot he was busting out all the time? Or once a year? Or an element of a specific match going around the horn (feud with Tito, Texas Death Matches with Hogan, etc)?

 

The second one goes more to how it's done.

 

Piledriving Backlund on the floor, having Bob juice, and having it take Bob two minutes to get back in the ring is Slow Selling rather than No Selling.

 

Not that Race did that to Bob. But Bob had other spots where he's eat something and take two minutes to get back in, with the heel breaking the count or going back out to take some shots.

 

Race piledriving someone outside the ring and in 20 seconds they back in... yeah, that forcing someone to make their own save. Not entirely no sell since I doubt the person popped up like Hawk, but forcing them to sell pretty weak.

 

 

John

[jdw]

Angle criticism is pre-smackdown six and picked up during the Smackdown six period. 2001-2002. Cena showed up around 2002 and I think seeing people pop as big for his rolling bodyslams as everyone elses rolling Germans was a big nail in the coffin of that dead end style.

 

there was some praise of Cena v Lesnar series, but most of that was aimed at Lesnar.

JDW or CRZ might be able to find where Jewett praised the smartness of the work in some Cena v Dupree matches.

CRZ may be able to find where I wrote some flattering things about Cena v Eddy Latin street fight.

And I know I wrote some stuff complimentary of the mic work in the Cena/B-2 pairing.

But really there wasn't alot of praise for cena as more than amusing undercard act in 2002.

I do recall some praise he got within the first year of his time in the WWF. I don't recall if Frank talked about the Dupree series. More likely the Lesnar series. Sticks in my head more in the sense that it was counter to the Lesner Love that some people had, and instead pointing out some positive things that Cena was doing. It was before he got into the feud with Eddy.

 

 

John

[Guest DietSoda]

Just out of curiousity, why am I a troll? Just because something I say doesn't fall in the line of thinking from the brain a lot of you tend to share, doesn't mean I'm trying to piss people off intentionally.

 

I asked a simple question, and got some good answers. Do you tell every person who confronts you about John Cena sucking, that they're just being a "troll"?

[anarchistxx]

Cena got tons of praise when he feuded with Undertaker in June 03, especially for his character work and aggression. The criticism's started when,

 

a. His 'raps' became immature and cringe worthy, instead of edgy and aggressive

b. He became face and won all the time

 

I personally just find him really, really bland, both in what he does in the ring, his promos, his character. He's lost his edge that he had back in 2003.

[gordi]

Something worth considering is that wrestlers in Harley's era tended to wrestle in such a way as to:

 

1) Establish their roles for the people watching in the arena

 

2) Get the people in the arena behind the good guy and against the bad guy

 

In Harley's case, and in particular with him being a bad guy champion, he wrestled in such a way as to:

 

3) Keep the people in the arena believing that the good guy had a real chance to triumph

 

Harley wasn't wrestling in such a way as to please people like us who make a hobby of breaking down pro wrestling matches, analysing them, and comparing them to one another.

 

Given Harley Race's role, and the way that he filled the role, stuff like an early-match dirty move that the good guy comes right back from makes a ton of sense. It fulfills all three criteria because it:

 

1) Establishes who the dirty cheater is, and who the underdog is

 

2) Gives the fans a reason to cheer for the good guy, as he has the spunk to come right back from something so devastating

 

and

 

3) Shows that the good guy has got the fire and courage to keep fighting and that he can take the worst that Harley is going to dish out.

 

Also, starting with a big high spot grabs the crowd and lets them know that they need to pay attention.

 

Having Harley subsequently bump all over the place for the good guy's offense, even if that offense is relatively weak, just builds on what has already been established. When Harley then triumphs by guile, luck, or subterfuge, it is a fitting end to the emotional roller coaster ride, and one which leaves hope open that maybe next time fortune won't choose to smile on the bad guy.

 

 

It's a smart match structure for what Harley spent most of his professional life doing. I can buy the idea that it breaks down when, for example, you watch a ton of his matches back to back on tape and notice the repeating pattern... but that's not the audience that he was performing for and, frankly, it's not how the matches were intended to be watched.

 

If Lawler's matches hold up better to that kind of scrutiny, that's nice and it might make collecting Lawler tapes or DVDs more rewarding than collecting Harley tapes or DVDs... but it hardly proves that Lawler was a better professional wrestler.

[Jingus]

Dude. He had jobbers kicking out of piledrivers and then going onto the next spot like it had just been a bodyslam. It wasn't a heel using a dirty move on a babyface, it was a top guy using a devastating finisher on a nobody and then acting like the devastating finisher barely even hurt. And Harley did the same thing when he was a babyface, too. The old "you shouldn't think about it, just sit back and enjoy it" arguement doesn't even begin to sweep that detail under the rug.

[S.L.L.]

Something worth considering is that wrestlers in Harley's era tended to wrestle in such a way as to:

 

1) Establish their roles for the people watching in the arena

 

2) Get the people in the arena behind the good guy and against the bad guy

 

In Harley's case, and in particular with him being a bad guy champion, he wrestled in such a way as to:

 

3) Keep the people in the arena believing that the good guy had a real chance to triumph

I haven't turned against Harley yet, but....

 

How does any of this necessitate making your opponent no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete. This is Harley Race we're talking about. This is a guy who's legendary for his big bag of moves. It's not like the piledriver on the concrete was his only option. If it was, does that not call for a serious re-evaluation of his work? Honestly, this reads like a more damning statement than anything any of the actual anti-Race guys in this thread have written. Suggesting that Harley was this limited really seems like putting him on the same level as Angle.

 

Given Harley Race's role, and the way that he filled the role, stuff like an early-match dirty move that the good guy comes right back from makes a ton of sense. It fulfills all three criteria because it:

 

1) Establishes who the dirty cheater is, and who the underdog is

 

2) Gives the fans a reason to cheer for the good guy, as he has the spunk to come right back from something so devastating

 

and

 

3) Shows that the good guy has got the fire and courage to keep fighting and that he can take the worst that Harley is going to dish out.

 

Also, starting with a big high spot grabs the crowd and lets them know that they need to pay attention.

 

Having Harley subsequently bump all over the place for the good guy's offense, even if that offense is relatively weak, just builds on what has already been established. When Harley then triumphs by guile, luck, or subterfuge, it is a fitting end to the emotional roller coaster ride, and one which leaves hope open that maybe next time fortune won't choose to smile on the bad guy.

Ric Flair had to fill the same role that Race did. Flair may have had certain flaws in his game, but he never had to make someone no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete in order to achieve the same aims as Harley. Was this Flair revolutionizing the wrestling playbook the way Race couldn't? Or was Race simply flawed in a way that Flair wasn't?

 

If Lawler's matches hold up better to that kind of scrutiny, that's nice and it might make collecting Lawler tapes or DVDs more rewarding than collecting Harley tapes or DVDs... but it hardly proves that Lawler was a better professional wrestler.

Why not? It's not as though Lawler wasn't meeting the requirements that his audience demanded of him. Not the same requirements Race had, since they were playing different roles, but he was meeting them. Some might even say he was meeting his requirements better than Race was meeting his. But if they're both meeting the requirements of their intended audiences, and Lawler's work stands up to further scrutiny and Race's doesn't, how doesn't that prove Lawler was the better wrestler?

[tomk]

I do recall some praise he got within the first year of his time in the WWF. I don't recall if Frank talked about the Dupree series. More likely the Lesnar series. Sticks in my head more in the sense that it was counter to the Lesner Love that some people had, and instead pointing out some positive things that Cena was doing. It was before he got into the feud with Eddy.

 

 

John

He may have praised him there too.

And probably not praise of Dupree series so much as single Dupree match.

But pretty sure it was Dupree match that got pimped as contrast to an Orton stinker when young Orton was being pimped. Sometimes Jewett will look at a series of matches. But this was more his basic two cherry picked matches interestingly taken apart and then uninteresting broad extrapolated conclusions from cherry picked matches.

 

At time remember being more interested in what he said about Dupree in match then about Cena.

[gordi]

Dude. He had jobbers kicking out of piledrivers and then going onto the next spot like it had just been a bodyslam. It wasn't a heel using a dirty move on a babyface, it was a top guy using a devastating finisher on a nobody and then acting like the devastating finisher barely even hurt. And Harley did the same thing when he was a babyface, too. The old "you shouldn't think about it, just sit back and enjoy it" arguement doesn't even begin to sweep that detail under the rug.

I'm hardly arguing that people shouldn't think about it, jingus. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing that people need to think about what the actual purpose of Harley's psychology was.

 

 

Why not? It's not as though Lawler wasn't meeting the requirements that his audience demanded of him. Not the same requirements Race had, since they were playing different roles, but he was meeting them. Some might even say he was meeting his requirements better than Race was meeting his. But if they're both meeting the requirements of their intended audiences, and Lawler's work stands up to further scrutiny and Race's doesn't, how doesn't that prove Lawler was the better wrestler?

You hit on the most important point there: Lawler's matches require an entirely different psychology than Race's because they were generally playing quite different roles. One of the most important things to consider when comparing their matches is that a lot of the Lawler matches that you are going to see come from one territory, Memphis... where Lawler was so well known that people have compared his celebrity, straight-faced, with that of Elvis Presley. Being the local hero or the hated local villain is an entirely different scenario than being the visiting world champion (A role that Harley filled for ten years). Of course their psychology was different.

 

It's more of a happy accident that Lawler's psychology stands up to repeated viewings and careful watching, I believe, than it is the result of Lawler carefully structuring his matches that way. The whole point of professional wrestling used to be to work the crowds in the arena. That may have changed, somewhat, in recent years as tapes and DVDs have become more widely available and ring work has become more self-aware. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing, though.

[S.L.L.]

Dude. He had jobbers kicking out of piledrivers and then going onto the next spot like it had just been a bodyslam. It wasn't a heel using a dirty move on a babyface, it was a top guy using a devastating finisher on a nobody and then acting like the devastating finisher barely even hurt. And Harley did the same thing when he was a babyface, too. The old "you shouldn't think about it, just sit back and enjoy it" arguement doesn't even begin to sweep that detail under the rug.

I'm hardly arguing that people shouldn't think about it, jingus. Quite the contrary. I'm arguing that people need to think about what the actual purpose of Harley's psychology was.

 

 

Why not? It's not as though Lawler wasn't meeting the requirements that his audience demanded of him. Not the same requirements Race had, since they were playing different roles, but he was meeting them. Some might even say he was meeting his requirements better than Race was meeting his. But if they're both meeting the requirements of their intended audiences, and Lawler's work stands up to further scrutiny and Race's doesn't, how doesn't that prove Lawler was the better wrestler?

You hit on the most important point there: Lawler's matches require an entirely different psychology than Race's because they were generally playing quite different roles. One of the most important things to consider when comparing their matches is that a lot of the Lawler matches that you are going to see come from one territory, Memphis... where Lawler was so well known that people have compared his celebrity, straight-faced, with that of Elvis Presley. Being the local hero or the hated local villain is an entirely different scenario than being the visiting world champion (A role that Harley filled for ten years). Of course their psychology was different.

You're missing a key point in both this and your response to Jingus. Yes, we should consider the role Harley was playing. Yes, we should factor in what the purpose of his psychology was. That doesn't mean he always did it well, or that there weren't better ways for him to do it. Flair filled the same role with the same aims and never made anyone no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete.

 

It's more of a happy accident that Lawler's psychology stands up to repeated viewings and careful watching, I believe, than it is the result of Lawler carefully structuring his matches that way.

 

So Lawler either has to be deliberately putting together a five-star workrate classic, or we're just enjoying his work due to pure randomness? There's no middle ground?

 

Context is important, of course, but quality is quality. Lawler's work standing up isn't a happy accident. Lawler's work stands up because Lawler was awesome.

 

The whole point of professional wrestling used to be to work the crowds in the arena. That may have changed, somewhat, in recent years as tapes and DVDs have become more widely available and ring work has become more self-aware. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing, though.

Fuck, Warrior worked the crowds in the arena, too. I guess we can't question his work, either.

[gordi]

Fuck, Warrior worked the crowds in the arena, too. I guess we can't question his work, either.

No, S.L.L. that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course we can question anybody's work. That and finding out about obscure matches to track down are pretty much the main points of visiting awesome elite snooty pro wrestling message boards like this one. I'd never try to argue that we need to just sit back and enjoy whatever is happening in the ring, and I'd never try to argue that we have no right to criticise. I love criticising pro wrestling, and I love reading other people's criticism.

 

What I'm arguing is that we need to be fair when judging the work of pro wrestlers.

 

You're missing a key point in both this and your response to Jingus. Yes, we should consider the role Harley was playing. Yes, we should factor in what the purpose of his psychology was. That doesn't mean he always did it well, or that there weren't better ways for him to do it. Flair filled the same role with the same aims and never made anyone no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete.

Now that, to me, is an interesting argument, and one that actually addresses the point(s) I was making. Thank you.

 

I might be tempted to go this far: Making his opponent under-sell a piledriver on the floor was possibly the right move in certain matches, given what Race needed to establish and how quickly and forcefully he needed to do so.

 

I'm not sure, but I think that it isn't going to be neccessary for me to go that far. I'm hoping that when William releases his Race set, we'll see a somewhat different pattern emerging than the picture that Phil has painted. What I belive we will see is not so much Race endlessly piledriving jobbers onto the concrete floor with so little time left before count-out that they need to pop right up and dash straight back into the ring...

 

No, what I think we'll see is that Harley tends to start out his matches with some kind of high spot that looks damaging, but that he quickly follows that up by making some kind of mistake that gives the advantage back to his opponent. Even that might seem like poor psychology, since the standard formula is to have the bad guy "slip on a banana peel" pretty late in the match, after having derailed the good guy's fiery comeback...

 

But let's take a quick look at who Harley is and why he might start so many matches that way:

 

He's the visiting champ. He struts into the arena, clearly a superior specimen of manly athleticism. If the local promoter has TV time, Harley would probably have cut a promo building up the local hero... only to end it by proclaiming his own obvious superiority. If the tape shows Harley's entrance, he's probably strutting his stuff for the fans, maybe even pulling a kind of Rick Rude deal: Posing for some pretty girl while insulting her boyfriend.

 

The implications are clear: This bastard thinks he's better than us!

 

So... when the champ starts out strong, only to screw up, that makes him the object of catcalls and derision. It successfully establishes him as the kind of heel who thinks he's the best and gets frustrated when the other guy gets one up on him. Then he builds from there.

 

That's good, classic, 70s-style psychology. It's right that Harley Race should build his matches that way.

 

Now, I have a lot of respect for Phil's opinions, (and for yours, S.L.L... and for those of many of the people posting here...) and if it turns out that all that is going on is that Harley is throwing out a big move with no real purpose, I'll eat my words.

 

However... I also have a lot of respect for Harley Race. I imagine that (when there are a lot of matches available to look at) we will see that there is a bit more going on with his match structure than what might immediately meet the eye.

[S.L.L.]

But let's take a quick look at who Harley is and why he might start so many matches that way:

 

He's the visiting champ. He struts into the arena, clearly a superior specimen of manly athleticism. If the local promoter has TV time, Harley would probably have cut a promo building up the local hero... only to end it by proclaiming his own obvious superiority. If the tape shows Harley's entrance, he's probably strutting his stuff for the fans, maybe even pulling a kind of Rick Rude deal: Posing for some pretty girl while insulting her boyfriend.

 

The implications are clear: This bastard thinks he's better than us!

 

So... when the champ starts out strong, only to screw up, that makes him the object of catcalls and derision. It successfully establishes him as the kind of heel who thinks he's the best and gets frustrated when the other guy gets one up on him. Then he builds from there.

 

That's good, classic, 70s-style psychology. It's right that Harley Race should build his matches that way.

Yes, but that was pretty much the formula all the NWA champs worked, going back at least to Thesz, and I wouldn't be shocked if someone like Strangler Lewis was doing similar stuff before then. It's a good formula, and I can get behind a good formula.

 

That said, just because something fits into a proven formula doesn't make it good, or doesn't mean there aren't much better things you could do that fit the formula just as well, if not better. The fact that making his opponent no-sell/undersell a piledriver on the concrete may have fit his formula doesn't mean we have to accept it when we have other wrestlers throughout history who work the same formula without doing that, or when comparing him to other wrestlers working other formulas/styles on a really high-end level like Lawler who don't have equivalent flaws. I mean, there's certainly a lot of stuff that Race does very, very well, I just don't see how his formula requires us to gloss over the things he doesn't do so well.

[goodhelmet]

I am chasing some rare shit for Race but the set will be released this summer by hook or by crook.

[gordi]

Yes, but that was pretty much the formula all the NWA champs worked, going back at least to Thesz, and I wouldn't be shocked if someone like Strangler Lewis was doing similar stuff before then. It's a good formula, and I can get behind a good formula.

Really? Lou Thesz used to strut and preen for the crowd only to screw up in humiliating fashion early in his matches? Are you sure?

 

I don't think so. That was Race's deal, not Thesz' deal... Dory, Terry, Jack Brisco... those guys had their own way of doing things and it was different from Harley's way. There were similarities, to be sure: The bad guy usually got frustrated by being outwrestled by the good guy one way or another...

 

That's why I went into a wee bit of detail in describing things, though. The differences are in the details, and those details were what made Harkey who he was a champion and as a wrestler. Those deatils, in my mind, are what more than justify Harley throwing a big move out there in the early going in so many matches. That was his way, and Harley's way worked for a lot of people for a lot of years. If him giving piledrivers to Koko B. Ware and Corporal Kirchner invalidates that for you, though... I can dig that. Honestly. I just sincerely think that Harley's tendancy to overdo his early-match high spots is being grossly overplayed in this thread.

[jdw]

Really? Lou Thesz used to strut and preen for the crowd only to screw up in humiliating fashion early in his matches? Are you sure?

Lou pretty much bitched, stooged, cheap shotted and roughhoused his was through a one hour draw against Gagne in the early 50s, which gave a pretty good indication of how he worked as NWA Champ opposite an Ultra Babyface. The "NWA Champion Templete" already existed with Champion #2.

 

Did he strut and preen? Not really. But then again, I wouldn't associate "strutting and preening" with Harley as much as I would with Buddy Rogers and Ric Flair. Harley tended to have other ways to show ass and stooge.

 

 

I don't think so. That was Race's deal, not Thesz' deal... Dory, Terry, Jack Brisco... those guys had their own way of doing things and it was different from Harley's way.

Harley was a clearer, more theatrical heel than Dory and Jack... but both of those guys heeled when needed as champs. Jack was a good heel, frankly.

 

Terry was even more over the top than Harley.

 

I would say that Harley was *less* over the top than Buddy.

 

 

John

[gordi]

Really? Lou Thesz used to strut and preen for the crowd only to screw up in humiliating fashion early in his matches? Are you sure?

Lou pretty much bitched, stooged, cheap shotted and roughhoused his was through a one hour draw against Gagne in the early 50s, which gave a pretty good indication of how he worked as NWA Champ opposite an Ultra Babyface. The "NWA Champion Templete" already existed with Champion #2.

 

Did he strut and preen? Not really. But then again, I wouldn't associate "strutting and preening" with Harley as much as I would with Buddy Rogers and Ric Flair. Harley tended to have other ways to show ass and stooge.

 

 

I don't think so. That was Race's deal, not Thesz' deal... Dory, Terry, Jack Brisco... those guys had their own way of doing things and it was different from Harley's way.

Harley was a clearer, more theatrical heel than Dory and Jack... but both of those guys heeled when needed as champs. Jack was a good heel, frankly.

 

Terry was even more over the top than Harley.

 

I would say that Harley was *less* over the top than Buddy.

 

 

John

 

Yeesh. I am nowhere close to trying to argue that Harley was the only NWA World Champion to wrestle as a heel, to show ass, or to stooge. Of course he wasn't. The whole point is in the details of HOW he stooged and showed ass, and how Harley screwing up early builds into that... and how that in turn makes sense of Harley throwing out a big move early that the good guy can come right back from.

 

Cheap shotting and rough housing is different from strutting your stuff before the match only to screw up early on... It's a subtle difference, but an important one for the purposes of this specific argument. It's the little things that make sense of what people are (in my eyes) trying to make into too much of a big thing.

 

I agree with your descriptions of the styles fo the other NWA champs, by the way. There were many striking similarities with what they all did, as there should be because they all shared the role of touring champion. That's why the little things take on some importance when comparing them.

[jdw]

Again, I don't see Harley as a struter and preener in his NWA Champ Era. Perhaps he did as the "King" because that's what the WWF wanted him to do. I also think his stooging and bitching was far more toned down from say Rogers, Terry and Flair.

 

Harley tended to show a lot of ass through bumping and pretty theatrical selling. Champs were "begging off" all the way back to Thesz. Rogers and Flair are super theatrical about it ("NOOOOOOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!!!!"). Harley's begging off was closer to what you might see out of a heeling Lou or Brisco. A bit more theatrical, but if Flair and Rogers are 10, Harley would be down at about 3 on the begging off scale.

 

I think one reason that Harley attracted a lot of fans in the late 90s and early 00s is that he combined:

 

* making faces look good like Flair (via bumping, selling and stooging); but

 

* didn't bitch out quite as fully as Flair; while

 

* having the ability to look like a machine on offense; in contrast to

 

* Flair's offense largely there to set up the face turning it back in Ric's direction

 

I think the Pro Harley Camp grew out of people being tired of Flair, Flair's style of work, and Watching More Flair. They liked a champ who made the opponents look good, but were tired of it being almost the only substance of Flair's matches.

 

Enter an increased amount of Harley becoming avaliable. Here's a world class bumper who could make faces look great while also looking great when he was on top.

 

Hence the people looking for something different finding Harley refreshing.

 

Some of the old DVDVR's have Dean's review of some of those matches as they were becoming available. His Harley vs. Jumbo review is a blast, and probably does a good job of capturing what a number of people where thinking at the time.

 

Myself, currently?

 

I'd pretty much rather watch most any Harley match that I haven't seen that a Flair match that I haven't seen. They're both of the "I've Got Stuff To Do" school where the sum of the parts don't always add up to a greater match when you think of it (but sure do if you're punching numbers into a star ratings calculator). Ric "pushed the action" a bit more, but I confess that I find his "stuff" a lot less interesting these days than Harley's.

 

 

John

[gordi]

Yeah, that pretty much describes the process by how I got into watching old Harley Race matches on tape. My first impression was that he was doing a variation of Flair's deal... then I thought I'd figured out that Flair was doing a version of Harley's deal... and I guess now I figure that they were both doing a variation of the touring NWA champion deal...

 

"Flair with better offense" wouldn't be a bad way to describe how I first thought of Race. I'd forgotten about that.

 

Edit: Regarding the strutting and preening stuff: I'm hoping that William unearths some "Handsome" Harley and "Pretty Boy" Larry tags from the AWA days, as I'd be willing to bet that's when Race started using the whole "playing up my studly qualities to the pretty girl in the front row before showing ass" method of building heat.

[jdw]

Edit: Regarding the strutting and preening stuff: I'm hoping that William unearths some "Handsome" Harley and "Pretty Boy" Larry tags from the AWA days, as I'd be willing to bet that's when Race started using the whole "playing up my studly qualities to the pretty girl in the front row before showing ass" method of building heat.

 

That's entirely possible. I'm just not sure that how he worked as "Handsome Harley" in the 60s is terribly relevant to how he worked in the 70s and 80s. It's a bit like Dick Beyers vs The Destroyer. It would be interesting to see what Beyers retained when he went under the mask, but he also certainly became a different wrestler when he turned masked heel. Or Mean Mark vs Taker.

 

John

[Jingus]

That's why I went into a wee bit of detail in describing things, though. The differences are in the details, and those details were what made Harkey who he was a champion and as a wrestler. Those deatils, in my mind, are what more than justify Harley throwing a big move out there in the early going in so many matches. That was his way, and Harley's way worked for a lot of people for a lot of years. If him giving piledrivers to Koko B. Ware and Corporal Kirchner invalidates that for you, though... I can dig that. Honestly. I just sincerely think that Harley's tendancy to overdo his early-match high spots is being grossly overplayed in this thread.

I wasn't trying to say that Harley was a shitty wrestler because of this. I still enjoy his matches. Almost every wrestler ever inevitably does some dumbass stuff which just doesn't make sense. Unlike most people here, I'm still a big fan of Kurt Angle's WWE work. But I don't just ignore the fact that he often incorporated some counterintuitive nonsense into his matches, I don't pretend that it didn't happen or attempt to craft an arguement about how it made sense for him to throw nine german suplexes in a row and then have his opponent no-sell it like a Harley Race piledriver. I see it, acknowledge it, and then get over it and enjoy the parts of the matches which I like.

 

And it's not that hard to find at least one small thing to like about even the worst match; if presented with Khali & Ashley vs. Deuce & Domino in a one-hour ironperson match, buried somewhere under all that arguement for suicide, there will be at least one tiny little bit of fun. Conversely, even in the finest Flair/Steamboat masterpiece you can find at least one bit which could've been done better.

 

 

...come to think of it, has anyone ever done an hour ironman tag match? I don't mean an oldschool type 2/3 falls match which goes long, I mean an real ironman tag. Seems like it could be kinda cool if you could get two really good teams for it.

[gordi]

I see it, acknowledge it, and then get over it and enjoy the parts of the matches which I like.

 

If it's a wrestler I like, then I tend to prefer to stretch out any kind of argument I can think of to try and act like it made sense... Lately I've been making some kind of honest attempt at enjoying matches for what they are rather than for who is in them... but it's hard to shake my preconceptions. I mean, I haven't even seen the Harley vs. Koko match yet... but I'm already halfway convinced that the undersold piledriver was the most awesome thing ever.