JerryvonKramer Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 His non-wrestling stuff in WWF is better than his in-ring work. (talking about his angles in 93-5, not his colour commentary work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 There are some pretty great Lawler fan cam matches (Bret and Savage) and what have you. And there are fun syndi matches like the one with Owen. He just wasn't put in the position to have good matches. That wasn't his role. It wasn't what he was getting paid for. He was still one of the best wrestlers on the roster. That's one of the reasons I hate the Great Matches mindset. http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/03/w...worry-when.html http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/05/t...-in-way-it.html http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/04/s...s-and-some.html http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/03/i...e-these-to.html http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/03/i...ng-i-worry.html http://segundacaida.blogspot.com/2011/03/w...ff-my-back.html That's what they've reviewed on the matter. I need to go back for that Tito match. I'm not sure how i missed it in my 93 WWF watching. I am JUST on that 8/13 MSG card but I'll admit I'm more excited about Yoko vs Bret in the cage and the sheer randomness of the Perfect/Jannetty/Tatanka vs Shawn/Diesel/Bam Bam elimination tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I wonder if -- as a group -- the Yearbooks and things like El-P watching WCW in sequence, have largely moved us beyond the 'Great Matches' mindset now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 Nope. I'm more firmly in it than ever. I don't care how good you are if I don't enjoy what you're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I'll defend him and say that most of his WWF stuff isn't that good. I would be surprised if I saw a good Jerry Lawler match there too. Best Lawler match in the WWF I've seen was probably this one: http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/93.htm WWF @ Salisbury, MD - Wicomico Youth & Civic Center - July 7, 1993 (3,700) Jerry Lawler pinned Owen Hart with the piledriver at 6:33 after avoiding a charge in the corner and Hart hit his shoulder on the ringpost; prior to the bout, Lawler grabbed the mic and said he would let Owen out of the match if Owen kissed his feet; Hart responded by spitting on Lawler's boot; after the contest, Lawler took the mic and said he hoped Bret Hart and Stu and Helen Hart watched what he just did; Lawler then stomped Hart on the mat (Legends of Wrestling Collection, Legends of Wrestling: Jerry Lawler and the Junkyard Dog) To me, it was some really good heel work by Lawler, but Owen was also quite game too, as it was arguably his best WWF babyface work. Good match/angle to build the Bret-Jerry feud. Agreed about the Bret matches. I don't think they were good. In fact, if you watch the '95 PPV ones back to back, you may wind up wanting to gouge your eyes out. I can't think of too many PPV matches that Jerry was in that might be considered good. I recall enjoying the Tazz one at SS2000, but it's been forever since I've seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I completely realize I'm outlying on the matter. I think Opportunity is something that can work against a wrestler to me, more than work for one. If you had the opportunity to have great matches and didn't have them (HHH), THAT is something that I will actively count against you. But not having the opportunity? If your other work when broken down and examined gives every indication that you're great, then you're great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 The thing is about Lawler in WWF is that he was booked almost at Honkey-Tonk-levels of chicken shit heelery. It's hard to have a good match if you're meant to be that weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I'm more of an optimist in the sense that if a wrestler is not put in a position to have good matches and manages to have them anyway, that's what impresses me. I'm also not sure Lawler wasn't put in that position. He worked in a headline or semi-headline position with Bret Hart on and off for a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 It seems to me that Lawler was booked strong in 1993 against Hart. Then the statutory rape charges hit and he went on hiatus. When Lawler came back, he was booked as a comedic heel. Even against Bret it was a "Kiss My Foot" match and cartoonish foolery surrounding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 When was he booked strong Al? I thought he was chicken shit from the start wasn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 According to the SC guys, he has four potentially great matches in 93 and they're all on house shows. Also, as far as I know they're the only WWF house show matches we have from him that year. This makes me feel like it's a footage issue more than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 I have become less of a fan of Lawler after watching the 1990 Yearbook, sadly. I still think he's a great wrestler, who at his best is as good as all but a handful of guys ever. I still enjoy him and always will. But I don't like that on promos, he treats most of his opponents as nothing happening losers who aren't even worthy of his time, because it makes me less excited to see the upcoming match. Also, I'm willing to watch those WWF house show matches with an open mind, but if any of them involve Lawler talking on the house mic during the match or hiding a non-existent foreign object, I'm not likely to enjoy them all that much. I am suspecting that they all do, but we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 My general point is that he wasn't allowed to stretch on TV but had more room to do so in House Shows which is why he's remembered a certain way in 1993 but it is likely not accurate for the brunt of his work in WWE in that year (opportunity). But certainly actually watching the matches will help that argument one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonsault Marvin Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 After years of reading about him in magazines, Lawler was such a let down when he showed up in WWF. The magazine had built up my expectations for him so much, and he was so disappointing. Years later, when I finally got to see old matches of him in Memphis that he was great in, I finally understood why they hyped him so much. It was like he had 100 times the charisma in the Memphis footage compared to him in WWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 It should be noted that Phil is rather liberal in his ratings with guys whose shtick he's a fan of. It seems like any match where Lawler plays hide-the-chain gets at least a Great rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 If you're a fan of a guy's shtick then why wouldn't you rate it highly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'm a fan of Backlund's shtick, more than most. I like Slaughter's shtick. I don't think their 5/83 match in MSG is a "great" match. It's good, heated as hell, and I'd recommend it to Backlund Fans, Slaughter Fans, and especially people who think Backlund never had any heat after Superstar broke the belt. But I wouldn't call it a great match. It's a semantics thing, which is what I think NintendoLogic is saying. Some are free with the word, and others don't. It's been a while since I've read a batch of Phil's reviews, but his "EPIC" seemed to be the equiv of great for most folks, and his great the equiv of good. It's not a Phil thing. I suspect a lot of us looked at one of those Alan4Life lists of his Best Matches of the Year and see 30+ ****1/2+ matches and think, "That's a bit free with the snowflakes." Semantics. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Fuck it, I am speaking for Phil since I have watched tons of his EPIC rating matches with him. He means Epic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Right... and I'm speaking as one describes something as EPIC a few less times a decade. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I don't always agree with him but I think if he says something's great, it's at least arguably great to me. There's an argument. Phil, who is a guy whose opinion about wrestling I respect, made it. Even so, I didn't sneak in the word arguably in my initial post for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Will: ponder the Demolition and Kane fans tossing around Epic and Great. Of course they mean EPIC and GREAT~! John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Kind of sad to see you say Lawler's stock is going down slightly for you Loss. I know his schtick matches do more for me than you but I haven't had a problem with his promo ability so far and since Flair has diminished some in April/May he would probably be my overall MVP for the year so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 And I would go back to my original question: If you're a fan of a guy's shtick then why wouldn't you rate it highly? In the original post I was questioning, it appeared to me you were dismissing Phil's ratings as hyperbole. I am arguing it isn't. Not that you can't disagree with the rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Will: ponder the Demolition and Kane fans tossing around Epic and Great. Of course they mean EPIC and GREAT~! John Vic is his own beast and he doesn't say something unless he means it. For me, the matches of Demolitions I think are great are matches I think are great. There is a handful of them. For the most part, though, I think that what they do that is exceptional isn't necessarily caught in the "great match" paradigm but in examining comparative trends over the breadth of their work. And I don't claim otherwise. As for Kane, whenever he comes up it's because someone says he's never had a good match and then people go and counter THAT specific argument. The best I'll argue is that Kane vs Chavo from Backlash is "really good and borderline great." Watch it and tell me if I'm wrong. I think that's a fair assessment, at least with my criteria. Honestly, John, when you say stuff like that, all it makes me think is that you really aren't familiar with the actual arguments being made and discussions taking place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Kind of sad to see you say Lawler's stock is going down slightly for you Loss. I know his schtick matches do more for me than you but I haven't had a promo with his promo ability so far and since Flair has diminished some in April/May he would probably be my overall MVP for the year so far. His promos are really enjoyable for the most part, and he was probably the best interview in wrestling. I'm not really down on Lawler, as much as I am more willing to criticize him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.