You don't really think people around PWO (or Smarkchoice or TOA or whatever board of this ilk) were thinking in term of Scott Keith idiocy in the last 15 years ? Seriously now...

Not really. If somebody says a match is *** and you say it's *****, am I wrong in saying you've overrated it if I think it's ****? All Jerome is saying is that it was so underrated it's become overrated, which is a common reaction in critical circles.

'

I'll maintain that the studio bout, the cage match from 86, and the blow-off at Starrcade are a trilogy of extremely strong matches.

 

I do not want to dissuade you from the conclusions you've drawn or El-P's from his view. I just hope that they are both minority views.

Every view I've ever had has been in the minority so I don't see why you'd worry about that.

Not really. If somebody says a match is *** and you say it's *****, am I wrong in saying you've overrated it if I think it's ****? All Jerome is saying is that it was so underrated it's become overrated, which is a common reaction in critical circles.

 

Exactly. But it seems if you don't follow the new consensus, you're either a dick or an idiot. Like with Hayes. I always thought he was underrated, that he was a pretty good worker, that he brought some shit to the table, even back when the consensus was "He's shit." Now I hear that he's better than Gordy, one of the best Texas worker ever etc… Even if my opinion on the guy, which is fairly positive, hasn't changed much, the fact that I say he went from underrated to overrated make it seems like I'm bashing the guy, when I'm really not. Same thing for Flair vs Garvin. I like it quite a bit.

 

I'm perfectly fine with being in a minority. I don't care one bit one way or another. I was in the consensus when I thought Takada was excellent 15 years ago. I like Takada even more today and I'm within an über minority now on this matter.

Love the Flair/Garvin matches... Cool to see Garvin make the top 100

One thing I've learned about this project is that minority views massively over-index.

One thing I've learned about this project is that minority views massively over-index.

 

What is that even supposed to mean ?

 

One thing I've learned about this project is that minority views massively over-index.

What is that even supposed to mean ?

 

Read it again and in time I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Not being a native English speaker nor exactly C2 level (which is the highest point you can get on the CECR chart, I wish I was), no, I don't really get it.

If Jerome and I were in the majority then how would Garvin finish 90th? And I didn't even say he shouldn't have finished 90th.

Garvin's rise from 237 to 90 seems to suggest all the advocacy has been effective. His placement is one of the happier results so far.

I too subscribe to the theory that he went from vastly underrated to maybe a slight bit overrated. I think that is probably a pretty good placement for him all things considered. I personally don't connect with the guy but certainly understand both sides.

I will point out that he was the only guy I had to fiat past BIGLAV (into Mil Mascaras's slot), which suggests that I think Garvin's case for the top 100 is actually quite weak. He was the one guy I was willing to negate the system for, which probably also says something.

Had Garvin never won the World Title, the line on him as one of Flair's most fun opponents would have never gone sour at all. Flair-Garvin was a hugely popular feud among hardcore fans at the time. When Garvin won the title, which coincided with a major decline for JCP, he became an easy scapegoat, and the feud started being viewed a little differently in hindsight. I don't know that people were ever significantly down on it, but I do think Flair-Windham was considered the much better in-ring feud until recent years, when I don't think nearly as many people around here think that now.

I probably would've been guilty of falling to some perceived "scott keith narrative" 10 years ago, but Chad and Parv's (and others) advocacy made me seek Garvin out. The advocacy worked on me in that I did enjoy those Flair matches, but maybe just not as much as others, that's all.

Flair-Garvin appeals to the violencemongers among us who love stiffness, but I think it also appeals to people who want to see a different side of Flair as someone driven by emotions who is willing to fight. You don't see heel Flair lose his cool opposite anyone but Garvin.

I do think Flair-Windham was considered the much better in-ring feud until recent years, when I don't think nearly as many people around here think that now.

 

Flair vs Windham smokes any Garvin stuff. Hell, I'd put Windham at his peak above Flair.

Flair-Garvin appeals to the violencemongers among us who love stiffness, but I think it also appeals to people who want to see a different side of Flair as someone driven by emotions who is willing to fight. You don't see heel Flair lose his cool opposite anyone but Garvin.

One of the things that makes Batman so great for me (or did), is how each of his major villains is in some way a mirror of Batman / Bruce Wayne, pushing at some aspect of his personality.

 

Joker is the chaos to his order

Ra's Al-Ghul is the mirror to the millionaire ideologist, and his equal in terms of wits and resources

The Penguin is the aspirational socialite flipside of Bruce Wayne, and a reminder that privilege is built on exploitation

Two-Face is his old friend, and mirrors Bruce's own split personality

Scarecrow plays on fear just like Batman plays on fear

 

And so we can go down the line. They are kind of perfect foes for Batman that highlight some particular aspect of his persona.

 

I think you can do that also with Garvin, Luger, Steamboat, Sting, Dusty, Harley, Funk, etc. What makes Garvin special is because, in a way that seems really different from Steamboat, he seems to be his equal and match. Bob Backlund vs. Greg Valentine also has this quality as a feud. The idea that the two guys are just matched -- height, weight, skills, experience, etc. It's pretty cool and not that many feuds have it.

 

I do think Flair-Windham was considered the much better in-ring feud until recent years, when I don't think nearly as many people around here think that now.

 

Flair vs Windham smokes any Garvin stuff. Hell, I'd put Windham at his peak above Flair.

 

 

We know that. Like most things you've posted in this thread, you've been saying it for nearly 15 years.

 

 

I do think Flair-Windham was considered the much better in-ring feud until recent years, when I don't think nearly as many people around here think that now.

 

Flair vs Windham smokes any Garvin stuff. Hell, I'd put Windham at his peak above Flair.

 

 

We know that. Like most things you've posted in this thread, you've been saying it for nearly 15 years.

 

That's such a low-blow.

If Vince McMahon was booking PWO, jdw and El-P would be coming back and squashing Jimmy Redman and that promising second-generation star Exposer.

Aside from the high points, I have really liked Garvin as a studio worker in general. He always had that aura of a guy who was about to wreck some poor guy off the streets, but the matches remained entertaining and - more importantly - meaningful. I also watched a few of his matches with Savage not too long ago and really liked them. They worked well together and I think it highlighted that there was a method to his pace and style - it wasn't just blandness.

I may have developed a fondness for Garvin as a direct reaction to his perceived "blandness" back when I first started watching old JCP on WWE 24/7 a decade ago. I expected a joke and instead found a tough guy who made all of his attacks mean something. I'm thrilled he made the top 100.

Didn't vote for Onita but still kinda happy to see him on there.