|
|
Post by JimmyJackJericho on Sept 13, 2006 5:50:09 GMT
Since there is an undercurrent of Billington-talk to all this, I figured I'd link to a thread on a slightly more serious forum, just to see how it goes down. I don't post there, but they generally seem to know their stuff. board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=24603I won't be doing a top 50 or 100, due to having a distinct lack of interest in Japanese wrestling at this point. It would basically be a WWE/NWA/WCW list of goodies, and therefore not worth the time. That said, number one would be Flair. |
|
|
|
Post by janedoe95 on Sept 13, 2006 16:31:55 GMT
Oh my God, have you actually seen the rest of that board? That's one of Smarkschoice's sister sites. I'm pretty sure I've put them down here plenty of times, why would you even think to link to them for any purpose other than derision? They watch a lot of wrestling, yeah, but just as with SC, it's had an adverse affect on them. Or maybe they were just mentally ill to begin with which is what caused them to develop such an absurd obsession. Then they all congrgate together to little areas of the internet where their contrarian jargon becomes the rule.
The moment they do a Michaels discussion(if they haven't already), prepare for hell. It'll quite honestly be worse than the Shawn thread in SC's best wrestler forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by tequillin on Sept 13, 2006 16:44:23 GMT
Personally I'm happy to be a part of AWT. I don't think much of many other sites and their members but quite honestly a lot can be learned from sites such as SC and DVDVR. Despite having some criticism's and nitpicking rare matches that I think should be added, I am very impressed with DVDVR's Top 100 WWF Matches of the 80's list. They've used a tonne of mathematics that possibly isn't complicated but makes me ill looking at it. Surprisingly Bret Hart shows as the strongest worker  indeedwrestling.frih.net/temp/dvdvr.html |
|
|
|
Post by janedoe95 on Sept 13, 2006 17:10:33 GMT
That's no surprise at all.
With Bret being your favorite worker, you'll probably have a better impression of them than I do. A MUCH better one, as I think Bret is overrated by the internet, while they believe that Shawn pretty much sucks and go along with the Bret overhyping. I used to think that those sites could be learned from, until I realized that more objective sources would be a much better idea. Puro, lucha and old-school wrestling themed non-message board sites, for instance. Or better yet, you could come to your OWN conclusion by seeking out stuff on tape sites. The only think you'll learn from those sites is how to be as smug and contrarian as they are. But then unfortunately, I remember that very few people in the IWC are the adamant Michaels apologist that I am. So they won't all be turned off by this sentiment, and will go ahead and use them as valid learning source. Some eventually will actually be turned to their line of thinking. In fact, let us remember that one of the guys with whom we were arguing at SC admitted to being a supposed one-time Michaels fan, until message boards like SC 'enlightened' him to how horribly overrated and horribly political Michaels is. Right, there's no such thing as an unabashed Michaels supporter who actually knows his stuff, of course. To think that a Michaels supporter on this board, could actually become that down the line just depresses me. In fact, this whole thing is depressing me. I'm fucking getting sick of wrestling and it's stupid, shitty fucking 'fans'. Gah. Why are people so fucking afraid to just be themselves and fucking forget about conformity and anti-establishment ideas. It's wrestling, NONE of us are smart for knowing what we do or liking what we do. We only become stupider when we can't even decide for ourselves what it is that we actually fucking like, and have to let others influence us.
|
|
|
|
Post by †SamuraiFoochs† on Sept 13, 2006 17:35:08 GMT
That's no surprise at all. With Bret being your favorite worker, you'll probably have a better impression of them than I do. A MUCH better one, as I think Bret is overrated by the internet, while they believe that Shawn pretty much sucks and go along with the Bret overhyping. I used to think that those sites could be learned from, until I realized that more objective sources would be a much better idea. Puro, lucha and old-school wrestling themed non-message board sites, for instance. Or better yet, you could come to your OWN conclusion by seeking out stuff on tape sites. The only think you'll learn from those sites is how to be as smug and contrarian as they are. But then unfortunately, I remember that very few people in the IWC are the adamant Michaels apologist that I am. So they won't all be turned off by this sentiment, and will go ahead and use them as valid learning source. Some eventually will actually be turned to their line of thinking. In fact, let us remember that one of the guys with whom we were arguing at SC admitted to being a supposed one-time Michaels fan, until message boards like SC 'enlightened' him to how horribly overrated and horribly political Michaels is. Right, there's no such thing as an unabashed Michaels supporter who actually knows his stuff, of course. To think that a Michaels supporter on this board, could actually become that down the line just depresses me. In fact, this whole thing is depressing me. I'm fucking getting sick of wrestling and it's stupid, shitty fucking 'fans'. Gah. Why are people so fucking afraid to just be themselves and fucking forget about conformity and anti-establishment ideas. It's wrestling, NONE of us are smart for knowing what we do or liking what we do. We only become stupider when we can't even decide for ourselves what it is that we actually fucking like, and have to let others influence us. Holy shit, Jane just ran wild on the IWC.  |
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 13, 2006 18:21:00 GMT
Since there is an undercurrent of Billington-talk to all this, I figured I'd link to a thread on a slightly more serious forum, just to see how it goes down. I don't post there, but they generally seem to know their stuff. board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=24603I won't be doing a top 50 or 100, due to having a distinct lack of interest in Japanese wrestling at this point. It would basically be a WWE/NWA/WCW list of goodies, and therefore not worth the time. That said, number one would be Flair. They marked him down for the wrong things. Not being able to play a face, what the hell is that? Aren't we talking about the ability to work a match here? Steamboat never played a heel and he's an easy top 15 pick. How many Japanese workers were distinguishable heels/faces? |
|
|
|
Post by tequillin on Sept 13, 2006 18:38:33 GMT
It's quite a fair conclusion given that Bret had the most matches in the list to start with Jane. There is also one or two more missing that should be on there instead of a few that are so bad I shudder to think what people were thinking voting for it.
Jane, Michaels never had singles matches in the 80's in WWF and there was only a few stand out tag's he was in, those of which are indeed listed. Bret had more experience and had blossomed more as a worker. I think the quality of the 80's was pretty bad in WWE, and had a real bad 'lethargic' sense to most aspects of the work. With Bret Hart not even in the prime of his career, it's pretty scary that they've worked out he was the top man. I didn't say I neccesarily agreed with it.
I think Bret is often overrated within parts of the IWC but he is also one of the very top workers to ever lace a pair of boots. He's just not the very best.
I'm working on a list of Top 10 TV matches year by year and I'm currently starting off at 1985 and working up, however if I get a hold of more early 80's, I'm going to start lower. I plan to make a better and more precise list than they did. Obviously it's going to be based on my own line of thinking and judgment but I'm going to be as fair as possible, whilst also seeking out the rarest and lesser seen WWF work that I think deserves to be on the list from the 80's. I watched two of them this morning. One with Michaels.
I see what you mean about getting sucked into the pretentious realms like SC if you peak too deep. I believe my heads screwed on tight enough to be sensible and not to do that. I do however like reading a lot of stuff from those sites and open myself up to workers I've never/rarely seen.
At the end of the day though, fuck those smarky, dirty, stinky, pretentious, elitist one eyed snake lickers.
When compiling a list of best workers ever like we've been doing, I'll take everything into account what is needed to be great, analyse all the contenders and then sensibly make the list.
When watching wrestling as a fan, getting excited and marking out (like I love doing and I do mainly watch wrestling for enjoyment and excitement), I will watch Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Owen Hart, Chris Benoit, Jushin Liger, The Rock, Mr Perfect, Edge, Rey Mysterio and loads of old WWF tapes. I wont watch all these smarky, obscure workers than nobody has heard of and pretend I'm enjoying it.
Great post Jane, as always. Your like a fairy watching over us, keeping us in line.
|
|
|
|
Post by euanzooom on Sept 13, 2006 18:41:45 GMT
I'm playing devil's advocate here, so don't shoot me down.....
This could be where crossing continents means a change in criteria. North American wrestling is far more based on the heel/face dynamic than Japan and uses much more out of ring drama to increase this further. My proposed logic is that it's a far bigger deal for a North American wrestler to not be able to play either role than it is for a Japanese one in a climate that doesn't need or require it any where near as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimmyJackJericho on Sept 14, 2006 2:37:59 GMT
Since there is an undercurrent of Billington-talk to all this, I figured I'd link to a thread on a slightly more serious forum, just to see how it goes down. I don't post there, but they generally seem to know their stuff. board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=24603I won't be doing a top 50 or 100, due to having a distinct lack of interest in Japanese wrestling at this point. It would basically be a WWE/NWA/WCW list of goodies, and therefore not worth the time. That said, number one would be Flair. They marked him down for the wrong things. Not being able to play a face, what the hell is that? Aren't we talking about the ability to work a match here? Steamboat never played a heel and he's an easy top 15 pick. How many Japanese workers were distinguishable heels/faces? Wrestling is about pulling off a good match. A MAJOR, MAJOR part of that is the heel/face dynamic. It may not matter in Japan, but it does in the US, and the fact that Dynamite could never work as a good faces is a major downpoint. And this is why you don't get Flair. You'd happily watch two wrestlers exchange holds and reversals and swish moves, while the rest of the audience is lining up for a piss waiting for the true entertainers. His flops and bumps are what people paid to see, and it's what got people over. His talent wasn't just the flops and bumps either. He mastered the crucial art of storytelling, the stuff that sucks fans in and keeps them on the edge of their seat. Dynamite was never going to draw money in the US because as good as he was, he wasn't an entertainer. |
|
|
|
Post by janedoe95 on Sept 14, 2006 3:34:10 GMT
Oh no, I took no issue with the lack of Michaels matches featured on their list, as even I'm objective enough with regards to Michaels to concede to his lack of notable matches from that decade. Even his best tag matches came mostly in the early 90s, so I don't have a problem with that. I can understand that considerably more Hart matches will be listed, but not that he'd come out as the top worker of the decade. But the fact remains that Bret is pretty much their boy there, and they're bound to overrate him. Some have claimed he's better than Billington, and in a poll they once conducted with the theme of Misawa vs Bret Hart, Bret, while not coming out on top actually received more than 50 votes. More than 50 fucking people on that site have the gall to believe that Bret Hart is better than fucking Misawa. When I say that Bret is overrated by the internet, I don't mean that he's not great. I mean that too many people consider him the greatest of all-time, or the best North Am. worker, and an unquestionable lock for no less than the top 10(no questions asked, anyone who doubts it is worthless). Utterly ridiculous in my view, especially when most of these people wouldn't consider Shawn for a top 50 or even 100. What is with the conception that there's that much difference between the ability of the two? I personally, think Shawn is better, but not by that much, and can accept someone believing Bret to be better as long as they don't believe that he's actually out of Shawn's league. That's freaking ridiculous. What gets me is how some Bret fans will claim Michaels sucks, when Bret himself wouldn't and never has claimed such a thing. Why would they hate Shawn, so much more than BRET HIMSELF does that they would actually try to convince themselves that lacks ability, or even that he's merely 'ok' but nowhere near Bret's league? I fucking despise this ridiculous bias. This is the reason for my Bret is overrated stance, and in addition is a contributing factor to the demise of my own one-time fandom of the man. But I've no doubt delved into this countless times. Still, I need to vent and there's few places where I can really get away with letting loose like this. Agreed, and I'm surprised and relieved to know that even you can admit to your own favorite wrestler being overrated by some. I'd certainly have a hard time applying the word overrated to Michaels in any aspect(especially with the way the IWC already to absurd levels engages in this act), so I give you major props for that. I certainly believe that you are too. Unfortunately, you're in the distinctly minority population of independent thinking pro-wrestling fans.  Well thank you. I honestly wasn't expecting anything in the way of compliments for that last post. It was one of my more unorganized efforts which consisted pretty much of just venting whatever came to mind. I was just letting loose and not even worrying about articulating myself in a remotely sophisticated manner. I don't actually expect that my anti-smark tirades would actually be enjoyable reads, either. It's just that I don't care whether they are, I simply say what I feel. I know that I'm rather cynical, and am not exactly a top notch wordsmith or anything. So when I receive praise, it kind of warms my sometimes black heart. Btw, any feedback at all for my top 70 list? I've just noticed how I received none, and for all that hard work I put into it I was expecting someone to have a response. Just saying is all. |
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 14, 2006 9:43:15 GMT
A heel/face dynamic is not, repeat not, an essential ingredient in the recipie for a great match, nor has it ever been. At best, it is an additional plus, and at worst, a quick fix for a storyline. This is true anywhere, west and east. One of the most acclaimed matches of the late 90s, the Owen Tribute match, didn't have it and didn't need it. A lot of the Shawn/Bret matches didn't have definitive a face or heel.
Yes, wrestling is about putting on a great match and telling a good story. Billington could do both of these, and to say he wasn't an entertainer is pure bullshit. He played an excellent heel in the ring, and as for his lack of face work, that's more because he was never required to play a face. In Japan, he was either needed to get Tiger Mask over or respresent the best of the west against the top Japanese workers. And guess what? People paid to see it. In the US, he was never pushed as a singles face either, so why mark him down for it?
If we're drawing a comparison with Flair, Flair never worked as a convincing face, either. He did all the low blows, left leg-based psychology and cocky strutting when he was meant to be getting the bad guy over. He's still doing it today: in your so-called MoTY against the devilish Triple H at Taboo Tuesday, he seemed to think he was still wrestling whiter-than-white Ricky Steamboat (who should not feature in the top ten of anyone who buys into this idea that only playing one role for the majority of your career is a major downpoint). Likewise against Carlito, likewise against Foley. Call it "giving the fans what they want" or an old man using dirty tricks to survive, but the fact is that Flair has become so wrapped up in his heel role over the years, he is unable to play anything else between the ropes. And it doesn't draw.
I could apply your "you don't get Flair" logic to AJ Styles. You've criticised AJ in the past for illogical displays of athleticism, but the moron crowd eats it up, and apparently whenever Styles has been in the main event or a high profile match, more people have tuned in to see it. Flair's comedy bumps, selling his own woo and repetition of ineffectual spots and holds are just as illogical, but apparently the fans turned up to see them (which is very doubtful). What made Flair great was what he did in-between the stupidity, when he wasn't pandering to a crowd of neanderthals. He, as you said, mastered the art of storytelling, and so did Billington. Watch the two circa 20 minute matches against Sammy in '82 if you don't believe me. Search for their final match where he gets so frustrated, he assaults the referee and tries to kill the Tiger Mask, figuratively and literally. Or his earlier stuff in Stampede, where he played *gasp* a good face when carrying Bret Hart.
In my view, Flair's bullshit wasn't what drew people. It was his image and mic skills. When he wasn't reminding people that wrestling is fake, he was a talented worker, but none of his ring work drew the masses in the US (they did in Japan). He ripped Buddy Rogers' gimmick (who in turn partly stole it from Gorgeous George) and improved it. Billington didn't, couldn't talk on the mic, and was never pushed, but since we're assessing how good a worker he was, none of that should come into it. It's a myth that it was what the two men did in the ring that defined whether they were a draw or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimmyJackJericho on Sept 14, 2006 17:27:18 GMT
A heel/face dynamic is not, repeat not, an essential ingredient in the recipie for a great match, nor has it ever been. At best, it is an additional plus, and at worst, a quick fix for a storyline. This is true anywhere, west and east. One of the most acclaimed matches of the late 90s, the Owen Tribute match, didn't have it and didn't need it. A lot of the Shawn/Bret matches didn't have definitive a face or heel. It absolutely is. Without that part of a wrestling match, it's just an elaborate dance. A hard hitting one, but it's a choreographed procession of moves. Because he couldn't do it. He was the same wrestler as a babyface with Davey that he was as a prick. Because, as they said, he was a total prick. Saying Flair didn't draw is fucking stupid, and you know it. He drew in every town across the US, which is something no-one wrestling in the WWE has done since Austin. And using the Ric Flair of today is equally stupid, since the guy has become a parody of himself. And that's not even a bad thing, since he's still over as a motherfucker. Repetition of ineffectual spots? I hope you mean that in kayfabe, because in reality, that was what the fans paid to see. Which is probably what pisses you off most about him. Just like Hogan, only for sixty minutes a night instead of sixty minutes a month. The difference between Flair and AJ? Effective storytelling, and psychology. It's the difference between flopping on your face because someone beat the shit out of you, and jumping off a turnbuckle when someone is about to tap out. A good point, and you could certainly argue that Flair (these days) is essentially the same cheap pop machine that AJ is. Flair served a purpose, as did Billington. Obviously different purposes, but I take more issue with you putting Flair below thirty than I do Dynamite being higher than him. Flair's "exposing the business" spots, if you think about it, didn't expose the business in the NWA. He got tossed off a turnbuckle (hardly exposing the business), "over"sold offence (Michaels, Perfect). There's no such thing as an illogical hold over an hour long match, where it's perfectly conceivable that you're just wearing down the opponent. What this comes down to, is opinion. You clearly prefer wrestling matches, whereas I (along with most of North America) prefer that specific Heel/Face dynamic, and the more grandiose matches. The odd thing, is that I prefer Stampede and WoS wrestling over everything else, despite them being less Heel/Face oriented and more an exchange of holds and counters. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 14, 2006 21:34:52 GMT
Please, can you back this up with anything, as I have? Saying it doesn't make it so. I could name many, many matches that didn't have a heel/face dynamic that were superb in their own right and didn't need it, just like I could name many films that were excellent without definitive protagonists and antagonists. You saying different is like claiming every Misawa match missed the essentials, or that they just didn't happen at all.
Presumably you have proof? Because I'm watching a Dynamite/Bret match from Stampede right now, and Dynamite is playing at least as good a face as Benoit manages in his average match, and better than I've ever seen Flair manage.
I never said he didn't draw, I said he doesn't draw today and his stupid spots didn't draw. His out of the ring heel and micwork did.
It works as a comparison as it discredits Flair's Dreaded Formula. It's not like he ever worked brilliantly as a face, or that he just invented the crappy spots over the past couple of years. He's been doing them since the early 80s.
Even if that is true (I'd be astonished if thousands of fans bought tickets just to see Flair fail at yet another aerial attack), what does that have to do with placing him higher on a top workers list? If that is a criteria, we might as well have Hogan in the top twenty, because he was the most over guy in modern American pro wrestling history.
Why would that piss me off? Oh, wait, I know, it's the disproven old "OfLegend hates everything popular" line again, right? Grow the fuck up, JJJ, I'm watching a Rock match as you read this.
How about doing the flip in the turnbuckle, running across to the far turnbuckle and climbing up it? It makes as much sense as AJ's spiral tap to break up a submission, because Flair has already tried that a thousand times and been thrown off every time. Even the very first time he ever did it, it was stupid as shit, because it meant that Flair's character believed he had time to do it even though his opponent was in control because he was the one had just been whipped into the turnbuckle post. Maybe it did make the crowd go nuts, but it sure as fuck makes Flair look like far less of a storyteller than most make him out to be. He put together great tales in the ring, but they were often full of plotholes because of him.
I don't take issue with any of Flair's selling or his holds (except for the useage of the figure four as a finisher. If it's that easy to reverse it, any character worth his salt would have thrown it out of his repertoire after a week of being in the business), but his stupid spots. The Flair flip, the Flair flop and the being thrown off the top rope are mainly what get to me. Even his bumping I don't mind: sure, it was repetitive, but so was everything else the fuck he did, and at least his bumps looked good. And I never said "exposing the business": I know wrestling's not real and I don't give a fuck what 80s NWA fans thought or didn't think. What I don't like is when a wrestler as highly acclaimed as Flair is constantly reminding me. It's like a boom mic dropping into view in the middle of a movie.
As I said before, some of the most entertaining and spellbinding matches in history have worked without a heel/face dynamic. On a personal note, it's worth pointing out that I was one of the WWE's biggest supporters on IMDb and AWT up until they began using the late Eddie Guerrero in storylines, because I genuinely believe sports entertainment is more than defendable. I just won't do it any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 14, 2006 21:52:07 GMT
Oh, and I should probably add that Flair's been hanging just outside my top 20 since late Monday night.
|
|
|
|
Post by tequillin on Sept 15, 2006 1:51:07 GMT
I've been thinking that for ages. If this 'top workers ever' came down to playing the friggin gimmick best, then Hogan would be top. In reality Hogan wouldn't make my top 300, so that doesn't come into play. It's about talent, storytelling, realism, resiliance, workrate and to be able to work to the best of your capabilities and have matches that have the crowd eating out the palm of your hand.<<<<<< Something along those lines anyway. Not having a dig at anyone, but it's not about the gimmick and/or how over/ big a draw they were that puts them higher on a top workers list. |
|
|
|
Post by JimmyJackJericho on Sept 15, 2006 2:27:05 GMT
It's about context.
North American context is different from Japan. Europe as well.
Hence Flair in the US > Dynamite in the US. Apparently Flair in Japan is pretty huge too.
|
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 15, 2006 13:11:59 GMT
In terms of selling tickets and playing a heel outside of the ring, yes, Flair owns Dynamite in the US. I'm still struggling to see what the fuck that has to do with a worldwide top workers list. Flair's body of work in the US is far bigger than Dynamite's, too, but that's because Billington did most of his best stuff in Japan and struggled with injuries in the US, where he was never pushed.
If we're assessing their whole careers, which is what this is about, DK smokes Flair in terms of storytelling, structuring, in-ring innovation, and is at least on a par as a psychologist and a heel worker. So The Kid either > or = Flair in almost everything that matters. He didn't draw in the US because he couldn't talk and wasn't pushed, which is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrkennedy on Sept 15, 2006 14:30:50 GMT
I could never draw up a serious Top 100 list, I don't think I would even take it seriously. The top 10 would probably include guys like HBK, Triple H, Benoit etc. I know little or nothing about puro, I do watch some of todays guys like Hiroshi Tanahashi and Jun Akiyama but I've yet to have a decent viewing of the great puro workers like Antonio Inoki, Shinya Hashimoto, Jumbo Tsutra and Satoru Sayama. I refuse to put guys on a list based on other IWC member comments, I need to see these guys in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by OfLegend on Sept 15, 2006 14:32:55 GMT
Akiyama and Tanahashi pretty much own Inoki anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by janedoe95 on Sept 15, 2006 15:46:22 GMT
I doubt that even 10% of this board's population could come up with a non-farcial top 100 wrestlers list, if even just name 100 passable wrestlers. If this is a serious contest then the list requirement should at least be lowered to 50, so that more people could participate. 50 could be the minimum while the few more knowledgable folks could do 100.
Also, people whom aren't as confident could take less time 'researching' for their list if they only had to rank 50. Most if not all people will use match downloads as a resource method and that is just NOT an effective way of building a serious top 100. Anyone who couldn't name 100 wrestlers at the moment, would need a whole lot more than a few weeks and a few match downloads to suddenly be able to.
|
|
