Matt D

If only I was better with photoshop.

When do we talk about ANYONE out of context. I think maybe once in a blue moon there's a "How would Wrestler X do today?" And there's the occasional GOAT or WON HOF stuff, but in general, even then, it's all pretty grounded in context. 70% of those notes end up being about drawing or headlining anyway, about numbers in context. EDIT: Except that's not what he's really saying. What I think he's saying is that you can only evaluate a wrestler from 1986 if you put yourself in the mindset of a fan/observer/evaluator from 1986.

Actually,the other thing is this. When looking at the old stuff, the people doing it (myself included but I'm a pretty small voice in the grand scheme of things. I don't think anyone really pays attention to me relative to other people) are not just shitting on everything and not every idea is revisionist. For every stock pick that goes down, there's one that goes up, using the same criteria.

The interviews are the worst. You see this guy standing next to some poor shlub of an interviewer and he looks like he's just a crazy, madman who's about to put fear into your heart and then he sounds a little like your creepy uncle who spends every family gathering sleeping on the couch. Also, it's not like we look at things with anything but open and oft-discussed criteria. When we say Kurt Angle is terrible, we explain why we think so and it's all reasonable. Other people might use other criteria to say he's excellent and I think we'd generally acknowledge he's successful along some of those lines. It's just not what we care about (using generalizations again). Tastes change. People here and on DVDVR generally say "Yes, he was thought to be good at the time when these traits were considered more important, but looking back with the additional footage we have and now that we find these other traits more important, we don't find him to be good at all." That's all people are saying. How is that anything but reasonable? It's all opinion, since wrestling is an art form. What's most important if you're making claims is to acknowledge what you're talking about and how you came to those conclusions. When it comes to things like drawing, a lot of people go well out of their way to try to back up what they're saying. Dylan can make a case for the High Flyers drawing better than the Midnight Express. He's not just saying that because it's a fun whim for him. He's looked at this stuff in detail.

With Borne, at least he could be on the apron as Evan played FIP

I don't know if it's so cut and dry. There was a level of autonomy that Apter had that Tunney or Marlin didn't. Apter was out there in the field DOING SHIT instead of following a loose script. It still doesn't mean he should be given the credit, but I do think he served in a different role than Marlin or Tunney. I think on some level I'd compare him more to Monsoon or JJ Dillon under Dusty actually, but i'm really just pulling stuff out of my ass here.

I'm still reading these. What the hell was Verne doing running shows in Anchorage? That had to be crazy travel for everyone?

Not to double post AGAIN, but I was looking through the December 9 85 WON and Dave said that a match between Gordy/Hayes and the Roadies from "four or five weeks ago on ESPN" was excellent and he wanted a copy. Any idea what match that is? Is it crap? Then he went on to say: "Also, after the last set of tapes from Japan, I've become a big fan of the road Warriors. I give them credit. They used to stink, then they improved and were average, then good, and now they're damn good. There(sic) matches in Japan even though short, were all action filled and with Choshu & Yastu and Tsuruta & Tenryu and even Tsuruta & Ishikawa, they had great ones. Their Chicago match with the Freebirds was almost as good as these bouts, although the bout they lost to Regal & Farvin wasn't too hot."

He called himself "Senior Editor" here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBFKSbH0YeQ

The thing with Luger is that it's obvious he wasn't a wrestling guy. You listen to Arn Anderson talk and he grew up with wrestling. He wanted badly to do it, and yeah, it helps him in the ring, but it also means it's harder to think out of the box when it comes to traditions and what not.

This is pretty much the boat I'm in too, yes. I just think it's less likely the AWA Newsletter would get scanned than PWIs which have wider appeal and recognition.

This card boggles my mind. I went to school in Waltham. What a weird place to run a rare New England card in 86, and then you run THAT card. 9/24/86 Waltham, MA Boris Zhukov beat Marc Fabian Scott Hall beat Black Panther Colonel DeBeers beat David Foxx Buddy Rose & Doug Somers beat Man Mountain Dean & The Machine Sherri Martel beat Despina Montagus Brian Walsh beat Eric Sparaccia Boston Bad Boys beat Bill Rossi & Foxx att: 650 Also, one of my favorite parts of 91-92 WWF is John Nord. He has a really credible, huge offense and bumps amazingly for a guy of his size. Plus he's so much smarter a wrestler than the prototype in Brody when it comes to knowing when to give and how to react and what not. I don't know WHEN he got good though. He's not on the set once though. Was he just no good at this point of his career or what?

I wish. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Verne-Gagnes-PRO-W...4-/310401938415 you missed out! http://www.ebay.com/itm/AWA-Pro-Wrestling-...=item35bf2a3eb5 Looks like one is still up there though.

In general, wasn't Luger sort of revered for the boys since, as the first guy to really come in with lawyers/agents, he opened the doors for contracts to get better for all of them.* *I MAY have heard that in a Luger interview so it's probably suspect but I kind of believe it.

Do you have any copies of Verne Gagne's Pro Wrestling Newsletter or whatever the heck they were calling that in 84. I bet the ASK MR. BRAIN columns were awesome.

God damn bait and switch Pro Wrestling USA. On the 11-17 show they build the whole show to Roadies vs Rich/Lawler for the 11-24 show, including one of my favorite Lawler promos ever. And then on the 11-24 show, the main event instead is Ron Bass vs Joel Deaton.

It's just that they mention a "superbowl of wrestling" where they'd combine all the world titles, including the NWA one, and they never actually mention who the NWA champ is.

Most territory guys were somewhat credible when they came in, actually, since a lot of them had been through the area before. Don't underestimate the impact of the magazines back in the days before 1984, either. I got familiar with tons of guys that way before I ever saw them, and when they came into the AWA, I knew who they were if they hadn't been in previously. The mags often added a "must-see" element to the debut of a new guy to the area since their exploits were always protrayed as over-the-top in terms of skill, virtuosity, violence, or villainy. I've never actually seen a mag from before 84 or so, so I have no idea just what the contents were like. I'm curious about how Patera was presented. Being an Olympian could lead to instant credibility, I suppose. It did with Angle with a lot of crowds: fans, sheets, wrestlers. Character is probably the wrong word but if someone was to sum up 70s Patera in a few words along those lines, how would they? With Bockwinkel, you'd say something like "Experienced Intellectual Wrestler from Beverly Hills."

If you're a wrestling fan in 1980 and they bring in Patera, do you know who he is? Is he instantly credible to you? Andre is. Dory Funk Jr. is. Billy Graham was, right? Was Patera?

It was AWA, a few NWA guys, and then the assorted Wrestling Superstars, being Backlund, Lawler, Rich, Race, Dory Jr, and Graham. I know some guys like Backlund, Graham, and Race worked AWA around here but still. In all the promos they'd mention lots of names and belts and people, but no Flair. The best part is Jimmy Hart managing Saito.

Ok. why the hell is Ric Flair not mentioned at ALL in the first month of Pro Wrestling USA TV. I know he wasn't at the tapings but still.

Really, doesn't this just come down to Kofi being kind of shitty?

Honestly, I'm not sure they can really get that far away from that. The trick is to make it interesting in the execution and ideas, to find clever ways to make a hot tag work and to make an opening shine segment interesting. I'm not sure it's about the what but instead about the how.

Obviously they need to institute the DOUBLE FIP And maybe the LATE MATCH SHINE LEGWORK

There is concept and there is execution. I don't see how you could begin to compare Gagne and RVD when it comes to concept. Let me put it this way, if Gagne was the most awkward wrestler in the world (which he's not) and RVD the smoothest, then what I've seen out of Gagne's basic understanding of how to work a coherent, meaningful match still utterly eclipses RVD. EDIT: Which isn't to say I COMPLETELY love CHEATING FACE Greg Gagne. Remember though. Greg Gagne really only "cheated" when he was facing a bad guy who deserved a little taste of his own medicine. I'm sure if we watched all the TV during the time of the AWA set, it'd be full of the bad guys cutting promos on the good guys and fucking them over in various other matches besides the big ones on the set. By the time the matches went down, the good guys were justified to throw the bad guys tactics back in their faces, and that's why the crowds went nuts. It's not as if the High Flyers cheated when they'd do a studio match against two job guys, I'd imagine. Edit: The AWA Set: So Fucking Great It's Invading Threads Everywhere! Which would be every heel in the AWA and not every face did it, but Greg always did. The jerk. Of course he's a car salesman now. Snake oil.