Who Is Better?

[tigerpride]

Who are you to doubt El Dandy?

[goodhelmet]

Kerry Von Erich or Sting?

Kerry Von Erich by a mile. I'll look at the one common competitor in Ric Flair and Kerry's matches SMOKE the Sting-Flair series. Sting's Vader series is awesome but Kerry had killer series with the Freebirds, the Dynamic Duo, OMG, and Jerry Lawler. The Texas crew can add to this list but I am hard pressed to think of enough another Sting feud after Vader that would show how Sting was better than Kerry.

 

Tamura or Sano?

Um... Sano?

 

Steamboat or Bret?

- Hart is probably better but I look forward to watching Steamboat.

 

Marty Jones or El Dandy?

Haven't seen enough Marty Jones.

[Dylan Waco]

Sting and Kerry is an interesting one. In the past I've panned Kerry a lot but I'm willing to give him another chance. I think the Texas Set is going to make this comparison more interesting. I will say that I think the Flair as common opponent standard is a not a terribly good one because a) Sting never meshed terribly well for whatever reason and Of there two most famous matches one was from a period when no one would argue that Sting was a good worker (88) and the other was not long after Sting had come back from a major injury (GAB 90). I"ve grown to like Sting a lot more over time and think that he was a big part of what made those Vader matches classics (of the eight or so matches I've seen between those guys I never saw anything less than "very good" and I think Sting is actually the better wrestler in at least a couple of them). He was good for longer than we give him credit for and had quality matches up until the very end of the 90's. He was a really explosive athlete with a multitude of fun spots but not really predisposed to working spotfest and in fact could sell very well. Foley matches hold up well, he was a very good opponent for Regal. I don't know I just think there is more than meets the eye.

 

I like Sano better than Tamura but only because Sano was awesome at more than one style.

 

Honestly I think Steamboat is better than Bret by a very comfortable margin. Much better tag wrestler, sold better, bumped just as well, offense of the same caliber, better good matches and one of the few guys that can match Bret in depth of opponents. His brief run last year is sort ofa feather in his cap because you get the feeling he could start workign full time again and would still be a top thirty guy in the World.

 

Haven't seen enough prime El Dandy

[MJH]

Sting vs. Kerry

If this were a vote I'd go Sting, primarilly for his early '90s stuff that I'm sure you all know what matches I mean. I like Kerry but there'd need to be a few big revelations in a detailed World Class set for me to change on this even though I find Sting does get, at least in some circles, a tad overrated.

 

Sano vs. Tamura

Versatility can get overrated. I'd take Volk Han as a better performer than a lot of guys who worked more styles. I wasn't terribly high on the Liger feud as I had been in the past the last time I watched it through and I'd take Tamura's handful of U-Style matches over Sano's NOAH stuff. I'd take Kiyoshi but it's certainly debatable.

 

Steamboat vs. Bret

This is one you could easilly swing either way on and not be wrong. Bret's my favourite wrestler ever so I'm taking him unless there's a strong case the other way (for a Kobashi, say). I think Bret's top half-dozen matches hold up as stronger from a story-telling perspective (I don't think that's a particular strong-point of the Flair/Steamboat series). Ricky's smoother. Steamboat's probably a better sympathetic seller in the typical American sense, but Bret was clearly thinking realistic over visual and I'd probably side on him as a better seller as a result. I think what it might even boil down to, perhaps unfairly, is that Steamboat's best matches, or a good number, the Flair stuff, Savage, are his opponent's matches rather than his, whereas even as a babyface, Bret's stuff is Bret's stuff, y'know?

 

El Dandy vs.Marty Jones

Marty's far too non-descript for me to pick him here. He was good, very good at times, but I can't really find myself ever remembering him strongly in my mind, he's not particularly captivating. Rocco, Dynamite, Breaks, (and to a different degree Saint and Grey) I think they were just more dynamic and memorable. Marty's a bit too Malenkoish for me, though I certainly like him.

[jdw]

I think Kerry was underrated for a long time. I do wonder what his equiv of the Sting-Sid match is. Perhaps the Texas set has already come across it, but that's one positive for Sting: what was at the time a pretty watchable match against a pretty horrid worker who didn't have much watchable under his belt.

 

Steamer-Bret is a tough comp because Steamer never worked heel. I'd be interested in whether he even has an equiv of 8/92 Bret-DBS: a "classic" Face vs Face match that goes beyond the usual trappings (and limitations) of Face-Face match ups. I wouldn't offer up working heel or working a strong face-face match as reasons Bret was better. Just that it makes a comp between the two a pretty thin thread. Steamer-Morton (since Morton's heel stuff isn't a significant part of judging his work) and Bret-Shawn are always more viable comps because one can draw the lines of comp.

 

Sano-Tamura is similar.

 

John

[El-P]

As much as I like Sano, and I like him a lot, he never was the absolute best at what he did like Tamura was. Although you could argue he was the best junior in the world in 89, before Liger got his stride. Tamura was just beauty in motion. Who knows how good he would have been at other styles if he had to make a transition, but the fact remains that he was the best shoot-style worker ever and delivered an amazing body of very good to great matches during his career.

[Tim Cooke]

It's not a stretch to put Sano/Shamrock and Sano/Suzuki against two of Tamura's best and see them as equals. Also not a stretch to watch something like Tamura vs. Dick Vrij or Tariel and see Sano get a legit good match out of Bart Vale in 1991 before he started hitting his stride in 1992.

[El-P]

I haven't seen those particular Sano matches, but I have trouble believing they would rank right next to my beloved Tamura vs Volk Han & Khousaka matches. Then again, those are probably the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my 20 years watching wrestling, so I'm not claming objectivity either when it comes to the absolute best RINGS stuff.

I miss shoot style wrestling. And John mentionning Kansai as the WWWA champ reminds me that I miss joshi puroresu too.

[S.L.L.]

I think Kerry was underrated for a long time. I do wonder what his equiv of the Sting-Sid match is. Perhaps the Texas set has already come across it, but that's one positive for Sting: what was at the time a pretty watchable match against a pretty horrid worker who didn't have much watchable under his belt.

I've never seen Sting/Sid, but I have seen Kerry/Sid, and thought it was actually pretty good for a match with a green-as-grass Sid in it.

[Dylan Waco]

Versatility can be overrated which is why I always find the "Steamboat was never heel" talking point to be weak. Steamboat was never a heel because he was great babyface and there was no cause for him to be heel. Tamura was a great shootstyle worker to be sure and being the best at one style is a huge feather in anyone's cap. Having said that I don't think Tamura was better than Han and Tim's comps are true. Sano was a great shootstyle wrestler, after having already been a great junior wrestler. Being an arguably top ten guy in two different styles strikes me as being comparable to being a top three all time guy of a particular style. Though I can definitely see the case for Tamura over Sano

[smkelly]

Jumbo Tsuruta or Harley Race?

Hmm. I'd have to go with Tsuruta on this one - very difficult choice for me, as I like both men, but Jumbo was just so much better at times.

 

Randy Orton or Edge?

Orton. Although I dislike him as a man, he is superior to Edge in almost all categories that mean anything in wrestling.

 

Rob Van Dam or John Morrison?

RVD. His ECW TV title reign is one of the best in NA history (title reigns), plus he can bump and fly like a mo'fo.

 

Owen Hart or Brian Pillman?

Owen in a landslide.

 

Sano or Ultimo Dragon?

Sano in a landslide, good god is he a dickhead which = AWESOME.

 

Genichiro Tenryu or Randy Savage?

Eh, never been too big on Macho, so Tenryu because of 6/5/89.

 

Ted DiBiase or Rick Rude ?

Similar to Savage, never been that fond of DiBiase, so Rude by default.

 

1980s Ric Flair or 1980s Jerry Lawler?

Flair by a landslide to me - I never liked Lawler, and only slightly liked him after watching his Memphis stuff, which to me, is overrated.

 

Dustin Rhodes or Barry Windham?

Windham by a huge margin.

 

Kerry or Sting?

Sting for sure, no doubt about it.

 

Tamura or Sano?

Sano.

 

Steamboat or Bret?

Bret. While I like Steamer, he is just too...I don't know how to describe it...weak? Like, he is a terribly weak babyface, not that he isn't a good babyface, he just seems weak in the ring, and not his workrate, like his opponent could easily defeat him at any moment. Similar to how heels were bumbling morons sometimes, i.e. getting their foot caught and being physically unable to free themselves...

[jdw]

Versatility can be overrated which is why I always find the "Steamboat was never heel" talking point to be weak. Steamboat was never a heel because he was great babyface and there was no cause for him to be heel.

My point: it makes for a Tough Comp with Bret

 

Not that Bret was more versatility, since it's not a word I dropped in there.

 

But that we can comp Steamer with about 60% or 2/3rds of Bret's work, but don't really have something from Steamer to compare with the other 33% to 40%.

 

I saw a very good Heel Champ Bret vs Tough Guy Babyface Shammy match live in 1997. I don't know what of Steamer's that I can comp it with. Nothing, really.

 

The absense of such a match from Steamer's resume doesn't mean he sucks, or wasn't great, or wasn't better than Bret. It just means that there's Bret stuff that is very difficult to comp with Steamer because there isn't isn't the equivalent stuff for Steamer.

 

It's just a really hard comp for me because of that. If you think it's a piece of cake, more power to you.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

I actually wasn't responding to you John though I could see how you would read it that way. Was really speaking to Jerome's comments on Sano/Tamura. Steamboat just seemed like an obvious example because there are people out there who will claim Steamboat was worse than wrestler X because he never worked heel.

[jdw]

Sorry about that, then. They're both fun workers. One of the enjoyable things about watching the stuff in the two WWF projects is to get to see a lot of solid stuff of theirs.

 

John

[Frankensteiner]

I agree that Kerry-Sting is really really close but I would choose Sting. Kerry-Flair is better than Sting-Flair but I think that's more about Flair slowing down in the 90s than anything to do with Sting. And having just re-watched their Clash I match, I have to say that it's a pretty strong MOTYC for '88 and smokes Flair's matches with Luger from the same year. I don't think that match is a complete Flair carry job either. Otherwise, I'm not sure Kerry has another series of matches as strong as Sting's series with Vader, Cactus, and Regal.

 

Steamer-Bret is a tough comp because Steamer never worked heel. I'd be interested in whether he even has an equiv of 8/92 Bret-DBS: a "classic" Face vs Face match that goes beyond the usual trappings (and limitations) of Face-Face match ups. I wouldn't offer up working heel or working a strong face-face match as reasons Bret was better. Just that it makes a comp between the two a pretty thin thread. Steamer-Morton (since Morton's heel stuff isn't a significant part of judging his work) and Bret-Shawn are always more viable comps because one can draw the lines of comp.

I dunno, the way I look at it is Steamboat's big run was 1985-1994 which boils down to about 7 years worth of matches when taking into account all of his inactive periods. Hart's peak was from 1991-1997 which sums to 7 years, during which there's only 6 months worth of Bret working heel. So I wouldn't necessarily say you can comp Steamer to 60% of Bret's work. I think it's closer to 85-90%. I guess it depends how in-depth you want to go. I think if you chose each guys 10-15 best opponents from their peak, there would be enough to comp their work as faces.

 

As far as a classic face v face matches for Steamboat, the only ones I can think of are those US Tourney matches with Dustin in early '93.

[jdw]

Timeline is a bit of a problem.

 

I'm sure that folks would point to earlier Ricky stuff than 1985. I think his match with Tully at Starcade is one of his very best, reflecting on both of them very well. Others would point to his tag work as examples of his greatness as a tag babyface.

 

Then in the period, we have these tough stretches:

 

1987 Time off

 

He worked very little from July-October of 1987, largely special appearances to fill in for wrestlers (such as Jake).

 

1988 WWF Exit

 

He was on a limited schedule from November 1987 through Mania IV, which was his last match in that stretch with the WWF. He was off for basically a year until signing with WCW.

 

1989 WCW

 

He was just there from Feb to July/August. I don't recall if he was working every night, but don't think he did much other than the tag match prior to winning the title, and he may have had some other time off in there.

 

1991 WWF Return

 

He had a match or two in New Japan, and if I recall did some indy work in VA. But I don't think anyone is holding that up as examples of great Ricky stuff. His first match back in the WWF was 3/11/91, so it was more than a year and a half. He was done in October, and would debut in WCW memorably in November. Month off doesn't mean much compared to the other ones in here.

 

WCW Return

 

Nov 1991 through Aug 1994, pretty consistently working. Don't recall a major injury that kept him out.

 

Still... there are a number of holes in those "seven years".

 

I also don't think folks are just comparing them at their peaks. I don't think folks ignore Bret's tag work in the 80s because being good tag workers is something Steamer and Bret have in common, even if they probably did their best tag work on opposite side: one a face while the other was a heel. Even his singles matches with Savage and Ricky himself of things that people point to when considering Bret as a worker. Pre-peak? Sure, but certainly factors in rating Bret, just as Steambers stuff prior to 1985 is part of considering his work.

 

John

[Frankensteiner]

85-94 is 10 years, my calculation of 7 years takes into account his inactive periods.

[jdw]

Check, got it.

[ohtani's jacket]

Tamura or Sano?

 

Sano being as good as he was at shoot style was pretty phenomenal. He was one of the best workers in what you might call the "middle period" of shoot style and seemed to pick it up straight off the bat. Tamura, on the other hand, took a long time to come of age and had a really awkward development phase. It's arguable whether he'd have been any good if he hadn't started imitating Pancrase. Of course, once he started he pretty much set the benchmark for the style (a benchmark that will sadly never be passed), but I don't know if that's as impressive as Sano picking the style up in his very first match.

 

Steamboat or Bret?

 

One of the things I enjoyed most about the WCW project we did at Smarkschoice was developing a finer appreciation of Ricky Steamboat. He worked with a lot of great workers in WCW but I don't think for a second that you could use that as an "advantage" that he had over Bret because of how good he looked amongst all those great workers. He stood shoulder to shoulder with everyone and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that anybody was truly better than him during the first 12 months of his return. I liked Bret a lot in the past but have no interest in ever seeing him work again.

 

Marty Jones or El Dandy?

 

This is a tough one. Marty Jones was probably the best British worker I've seen on tape from the 70s and 80s. Not my favourite but the best. Dandy was pretty special too. I might have to go with Marty Jones on this one since he was the best worker in the UK for so long.

[El-P]

So :

 

Dick Murdock or Dick Slater ?

Terry Taylor or Ted DiBiase ?

Dan Kroffat or Dynamite Kid ?

Greg Valentine or Don Muraco ?

[Dylan Waco]

Murdoch was considerably better than Slater. I've soured on Murdoch a lot over the last few years in part because I think North/South was a really overrated team but also because I think Murdoch had a tendency to try and cram all of his shit into matches even at the expense of making sense/following the flow of the match. But Murdoch was almost always "fun" in the ring and when he was on his game he was an indisputably great talent. He's also one of the only guys who consistently got good shit out of Inoki so that should count for something. Slater was a poor man's Terry Funk. If you are going to pick someone to rip off that's not a bad choice but I don't think Slater was in the same league as Murdoch.

 

Taylor v. Dibiase is an interesting comp. I'm not sure how mid-80's Taylor holds up as I haven't watched much of it in years. Dibiase's best stuff from Mid-South is awesome, but those that put the set together suggested that Dibiase wasn't consistent at all and watching his WWF run that isn't something anyone should find shocking. I'm going to go with Dibiase because I think he worked a tighter style, but I could pretty easily be convinced otherwise. Neither of these guys is someone I think that highly of anymore.

 

Kroffat is a lot better than DK. Better tag wrestler and better singles guy actually.

 

I think Valentine smokes Muraco. I've seen a lot of bad Muraco from a period when he was supposedly a great wrestler. There is bad Valentine but it's much less common than bad Muraco. I also think Valentine's best work outshines Muraco. Valentine was a hard hitting motherfucker with a few nice theatrical bumps and not a whole lot else but he really got the most of that at his peak and was excellent. Post-prime I really like the Garvin matches as well.

[jdw]

Muraco has a lot of bad matches, and they often are because of Don. The Steamboat series has to be te most frustrating of all-time, and it's 100% because of Don. He didn't want to do much of anything.

 

I've seen Greg have matches like that, where he was just out there killing time. But they seemed to be later in the 80s after the tag run was done. Don was doing that all the way back to the feud with Pedro. Perhaps can toss some of it off on Pedro, but Don was more than willing to lay around.

 

John

[S.L.L.]

I'm not sure how mid-80's Taylor holds up as I haven't watched much of it in years.

If the Mid-South set was any indication - and I don't see why it wouldn't be - mid-80's Taylor was an interminable bore, albeit one who was reasonably carriable by your Ric Flairs and whatnot. Late-80's heel Taylor is where it was at.

[El-P]

Inspired by the DVDVR thread :

 

Lex Luger or HHH ?

[MJH]

[Takes the bullet]

 

HHH.

 

I don't think HHH is anywhere near as good as he thinks he is, but (moreso as a heel), he's consistently good, and occasionally very good. I agree with Dylan's point on DVDVR that his 2000 run (well it's January-July, really) is overrated, in some quarters very much so, but for all the selfishness and the "he's an asshole!" stuff, I don't think his actual work ever dropped below solid.

 

With Luger, I think the 1989 talk is over-compensation. By no means was he awful, and he was better than his original reputation, but I don't think I'd go beyond "good" at any point. His WWF run was completely uninspired, he had a comeback later in WCW but before long he was cashing a paycheck like everyone else.