Who else ? .....

 

(in all seriousness, I'm tempted to say that Michaels actually peaked in the Rockers)

If someone is allowed the opinion that they prefer Demolition to Arn and Tully, I am allowed the opinion that that point of view is untenable -- that is how relativism works.

That's literally the exact opposite of how relativism works. Relativism holds that are no absolute truths. "X is untenable" is an absolute truth, and has no place in relativism.

 

Except I wasn't stating it as an absolute truth but as an opinion, which you being a relativist can't say is untenable, and so on and so forth ad infinitum ad nauseum. This is also why I hold no truck with relativism.

 

However, I missed something crucial in rzombie's post:

 

Demolition and The Rockers would probably be my #1 and #2 WWF Tag Teams during the 1980's.

My bad. Apologies for not seeing that.

This is also why I hold no truck with relativism.

Jerry, what does this mean?

Don't make light of this. I'm soon getting there... And I still have to find that cool Beefcake match...

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/have-no-truck-with.html

 

I can't wait to use this today. "I hold no truck with you sir."

WWF tag wrestling of the 80's isn't really good enough at any point to fight over, that I've ever seen. Never really seemed like a focus for Vince.

 

Not to say there were never any good tag matches at all. But I'd have my doubts there's really enough genuinely good matches there to build a real sample size worth dissecting.

Except I wasn't stating it as an absolute truth but as an opinion.

Except "X is untenable" isn't an opinion and cannot possibly be stated as such. An argument is either tenable or not. Your opinion has about as much weight on the issue as it does on whether or not the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Unless, of course, you're a truth relativist, in which case your opinion matters a great deal on those things. But that's an extreme position, and there's no evidence that Matt D holds it. You can't just assume that everyone who disagrees with you does so because of obscure and bizarre schools of philosophy. Sometimes, people who agree with you that objective reality exists will still disagree with what 80's tag teams were good.

Reality exists.

 

I've explained myself more than enough on this. There are both summed up links and a big project if anyone is interested and wants to contest me on my very clear, very specific talking points (and no one ever does, so... yeah).

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad to review shitty British Bulldogs matches where Dynamite takes way too much offense if you want though and am actively looking forward to watching a bunch of Killer Bees matches at some point after seeing Brunzell on the AWA set.

 

And someday I shall see random Montreal tag work!

Reality exists.

 

I've explained myself more than enough on this. There are both summed up links and a big project if anyone is interested and wants to contest me on my very clear, very specific talking points (and no one ever does, so... yeah).

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad to review shitty British Bulldogs matches where Dynamite takes way too much offense if you want though and am actively looking forward to watching a bunch of Killer Bees matches at some point after seeing Brunzell on the AWA set.

 

And someday I shall see random Montreal tag work!

I just have to say that The Bulldogs were so awesome in '85-'86 that they claim the crown for the best 80's tag team. Bulldogs/Dream Team @ Mania 2 was the first great Mania match(****1/4 in my book). Their look, offense, bumps, innovation etc just put them above every one else. I know there's such a small sample to judge them on(they were merely average '87/'88 so that does count against them but still). You could put them as they were in WWE, ROH or Japan *today* and they are the best team in the world.

 

But it is a close race. The Rockers/Brainbusters are a CLOSE tie for 2nd in my book. I love AWA Rockers and every match I've seen them in is good-great(granted ALL of those matches were against Sommers/Rose except the 1 fun nasty boys match on Shawn's last dvd) plus their WWF tenure was great. Really liked the WM5 match with the Towers since I was a kid.

 

More later...

The Bulldogs were best when they first came on the scene in 85/86 for sure. I think they were best at having "powerman" squash matches with random jobbers. That's not the best compliment I can give but I definitely enjoy that type of shit.

For roided up, unprofessional, douchebags, entertaining for potato fest and dangerous offense on unwilling opponents Bulldogs are a distant second to The Steiners.

For roided up, unprofessional, douchebags, entertaining for potato fest and dangerous offense on unwilling opponents Bulldogs are a distant second to The Steiners.

I gotta tell ya though, if you were 13 like me and my pals were at the time, when the Bulldogs first started appearing on Saturday Morning TV? Shit, man. They were fucking awesome. You don't think about or even notice shit like, "They're unprofessional and stiff for no reason" at that age. All we thought at the time was these guys were fast, did awesome moves, beat people up, and were in awesome shape.

 

Now, that's not a defense. Looking back, you think "They didn't need to be so rough on job guys" and you realize how over rated they are. BUT, that initial feeling they gave you at the time was fucking cool. It was why we all marked out so much when they won the belts at Mania 2.

I agree with that definitely. Nothing is better than seeing Brian Knobs head get spiked to the mat off a Frankensteiner. Of course, I don't think Knobs was necessarily unwilling.

For roided up, unprofessional, douchebags, entertaining for potato fest and dangerous offense on unwilling opponents Bulldogs are a distant second to The Steiners.

I gotta tell ya though, if you were 13 like me and my pals were at the time, when the Bulldogs first started appearing on Saturday Morning TV? Shit, man. They were fucking awesome. You don't think about or even notice shit like, "They're unprofessional and stiff for no reason" at that age. All we thought at the time was these guys were fast, did awesome moves, beat people up, and were in awesome shape.

 

Now, that's not a defense. Looking back, you think "They didn't need to be so rough on job guys" and you realize how over rated they are. BUT, that initial feeling they gave you at the time was fucking cool. It was why we all marked out so much when the won the belts at Mania 2.

 

You just described how I felt as a nine year old watching Steiners matches.

I agree with that definitely. Nothing is better than seeing Brian Knobs head get spiked to the mat off a Frankensteiner. Of course, I don't think Knobs was necessarily unwilling.

Man, remember that Steiners/ Nastys match in WCW right before the Nastys went to the WWF ? It might have actually been the first match I ever watched where I actually thought, "Holy shit, these guys are being beat up for real for some reason. What the fuck?" I haven't seen it in forever, but I remember it being short and holy shit stiff.

For roided up, unprofessional, douchebags, entertaining for potato fest and dangerous offense on unwilling opponents Bulldogs are a distant second to The Steiners.

Agreed. Both teams are greatly overrated.

I haven't seen a Bulldog match in ages, but I went through a shitload of Steiners, and from pure memory I think the Bulldogs were quite the better team.

I loved The Steiners back then. They were the first NWA/ WCW team that came off as equals to the Road Warriors.

I made a thread in the Microscope.

Except I wasn't stating it as an absolute truth but as an opinion.

Except "X is untenable" isn't an opinion and cannot possibly be stated as such. An argument is either tenable or not. Your opinion has about as much weight on the issue as it does on whether or not the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Unless, of course, you're a truth relativist, in which case your opinion matters a great deal on those things. But that's an extreme position, and there's no evidence that Matt D holds it. You can't just assume that everyone who disagrees with you does so because of obscure and bizarre schools of philosophy. Sometimes, people who agree with you that objective reality exists will still disagree with what 80's tag teams were good.

 

That's your opinion.

I kind of thought Jerry was referring to Plato's critism of relativism as being self-defeating.

Except I wasn't stating it as an absolute truth but as an opinion.

Except "X is untenable" isn't an opinion and cannot possibly be stated as such. An argument is either tenable or not. Your opinion has about as much weight on the issue as it does on whether or not the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Unless, of course, you're a truth relativist, in which case your opinion matters a great deal on those things. But that's an extreme position, and there's no evidence that Matt D holds it. You can't just assume that everyone who disagrees with you does so because of obscure and bizarre schools of philosophy. Sometimes, people who agree with you that objective reality exists will still disagree with what 80's tag teams were good.

 

That's your opinion.

 

And yet you claim to hold no truck with relativism? I expected better from you, Jerry. I expected you to take a firm stance on relativism's merits and the truck-holding thereof. Now I see you could not hold a truck regardless of what school of philosophy was in the driver's seat.

 

You will live to regret this, Jerry. Someday, relativism will get out of it's truck, and do you know what it will do? It will push you off of the roof of Cobo Hall, that's what! And when that happens, don't say I didn't warn you!

 

(Paid for by the Society For a Truth Relativism-Free America)

 

I kind of thought Jerry was referring to Plato's critism of relativism as being self-defeating.

Which it is, but for reasons completely unrelated to Matt D liking Demolition. What I'm driving at - through an admittedly unusual route - is that I don't like it when people feel the need to treat dissenting opinions as suspicious and motivated by something other than just a different point of view. We can argue the merits of those points of views (and should, because it's usually a lot of fun), but to not only outright dismiss it as wrong, but to do so by applying sinister motivations to it that aren't really there seems borderline insane.

I reviewed over thirty fucking matches, with my long drawn out insane "mention everything I like and try to tie it all together" style of reviewing.

 

If I did it for some ironic hipster post modern philosophy major reason then I have some sort of Keyser Söze split personality and it's fucking with me in some major way.