Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. Let me ask my 92 year old grandfather... he says it was pretty juvenile. Subjective argument.
Ah, your grandpappy's just jaded.
Of course he would. But it's moot as any pioneer could be just as successful in Flair's shoes. This idea that they couldn't even though they had the same tools and used the same techniques to get heat is totally stupid.
But that's the point. People such as Flair weren't just using old techniques. They were using older techniques that were refined and improved upon AND techniques created since.
You seen to be arguing that wrestling didn;t change at all in that time frame which is wrong.
But you don't think he could work Macho's, while Savage would be be perfectly at home with Londos audience right? Dumb argument is dumb.
My argument is that Savage would be BETTER at working the audience of his opponent due to the advantages he's amassed with historical advantages on his side.
Nope, he had more creative freedom to entertain audiences. That's it.
You've been saying this for a while and I don't know where it comes from. Was there some sort of governing body restricting the actions of wrestlers at the time?
Either guys then were not allowed to go beyond the most very modest expression of wrestling or they weren't capable of doing it for fear of breaking kayfabe and disrupting the suspense of disbelief.
Londos worked face his whole career. And there wasn't anything he did that Savage couldn't or didn't do to get over as a face. So that's why arguing ability is pretty dumb when they both had access to the same tools and used them well.
SOME of the same tools. Things change over time. Basics may remain, but enhancements are, and in this case, were made.
The difference is that Londos was far more popular with his audience than Savage was his. That can't be refuted. That's why Londos should have won.
It's far from irrefutable. Given that Savage's audience was those viewing at home or present in the arenas, he was either totally over as a face, or totally hated as a heel. He was completely over, either way, with his audience. You can't get MORE over than that.
Besides which, if this tournament, and it very well could be, a way of weeding out those you drew the highest relatively speaking in history, then we may as well form a flipping list and nix the tournament henceforth. More is taken into consideration than that obviously, which is a point that you seem to completely miss.
No it's not. The pioneers were the one's that created these techniques, and [really] they were the one's that did them the best.
There's no logic in that whatsoever.
They've had countless imitators. Like Coca Cola. But hardly nothing beats the original. Now that doesn't mean that some modern guys haven't come along and done them better, but not every big star of the 80's and 90's can say that they were better than the top pioneer performs. Savage certainly isn't one.
On the contrary, it almost sets a precedent for improvement. If you look at the Olympics for instance, year upon year, people improve. This is because they have the advantages of knowledge gained by past generations and the lessons learnt since then to incorporate.
By utilizing the basic formula as wrestlers did and do, you create a template upon which you can build greater foundations.
Horribly untrue. How many techincal-eqse wrestlers who worked a style similar to Londos were popular in the modern era? Countless. Race, Bockwinkel, Hart, Flair, Angle, Jericho, Bryan...
Ugh, so inaccurate. The closest person you'll approach on that list like Londos would be Bockwinkel and even he had to be an ingredient in the cocktail of success that made a regional promotion. All of those other names had a base in technical wrestling but were so much mor well-rounded as competitors that they simply aren't comparable.
Combined with his charisma how could any nonbiased person possibly suggest otherwise.
By demonstrating that apples, despite much harping to the contrary, are in fact not oranges!
It is true. And I already explained why it's true. And expect to hear it from me again when Lewis takes on Angle next round. When the business became exposed and suspension of disbelief became necessary, wrestlers still worked to give the allusion of an actual fight, because that's what wrestling had always been about in the past. A fight. Except back then fans had no idea of the choreographed nature of wrestling.
I hardly see the sense in that. So... the business was totally exposed but people just kept on doing what they were doing because they had no other ideas. No, rather enough people either didn't know it was scripted, or were able to suspecd their disbelief to create the illusion that it was real and continue to allow it to be successful. I know which is more likely.
Pro wrestling was still all about the show back then too. Except the wrestlers did not have the freedom of expression back then as wrestlers do now. Ring wise. I fail to see how that makes modern pro wrestlers better.
Unless you can prove that this is the case, and not just a case of ancestral wrestlers being limited, I can't really accept that point.
Maybe. But not every match lasted hours upon hours. Many matches were 2 out of 3, and the falls could be won quickly or they could go to the time limit. If there was a DQ fans may have only seen 1 fall. That meant the rematch, same fans would have seen it, had to be worked differently.
Let's be honest, every match is different. Short or long, no two snowflakes are the same. It's a hurdle all wrestlers of all generation have had to contend with, keeping things updated.
it was the constraints of television shows that have forced modern wrestlers to work 20 minutes or less. Do you not think the pioneers could have have done the same thing? That's like saying Savage couldn't work a 2+ hour match. Of course he could. Just like Londos could have easily told a great story in 20 minutes. Most of his available Youtube matches last that long anyway.
I'm not convinced they could have done the same thing as effectively, no. Similarly, I don't know if Savage could've worked a two hour match. Certainly not like the kind of match he normally competed in at the least. And I watched those couple of matches, not exactly barn burners, but I suppose I'm not the audience am I?
Yes I can. The fans did not know wrestling was choreographed because the industry did not allow them to believe it. They allowed the fans to believe matches were fixed, and then wrestlers worked diligently to redupe fans into believing the spectacle was a sport. And then wrestling became ousted because the industry allowed it. And now they rely on S.O.D to stage matches that still look real. I use terms like "heat" and "work" and "face and heel" because the industry has allowed me to know those terms.
But these are terms that have become popularised only fairly recently with the arrival of internets and the like. These were still common insider terms in Savage's day when kayfabe was still rampant (you only have to ask David Schultz). In the main event of wrestlemania one, Muhammed Ali was so incensed by what he saw from the heels that he tried to intervene in the ring and fight them. And Ali had even worked before then too.
And people would believe things were real because wrestlers had to work diligently in conjunction with their gimmicks to present the image that wrestling was real. And many people, regardless of what you might say, bought into it. Bought into it enough to fill out the Silverdome. Even if straddlers did know it was staged, it was the art of working the smarks that exists to this day and we've all bought into at one time.
It's nothing that couldn't have been mastered by the pioneers. It's as ridiculous as saying Savage couldn't have been successful back then.
Technically he couldn't with his 90's toolset, but if we were to warp reality and allow him to learn how to hook first he would have been successful.
Contradiction much? He would've been successful because he would've drawn enough people to watch him to make it a sell-out when he performed, regardless of what he did int the ring.
This is totally false. For 50 years after Lewis and Londos wrestling did not change that much. Even with the addition of television. Thesz, Gagne, Race, and Flair still worked matches under the premised that fans did not know wrestling was choreographed. There's a difference between that and knowing wrestling was a work.
Just totally wrong. The essential premise of wrestling didn't change. Of course not. Never has. Simulate a real encounter and reap the financial benefits. But wrestling did change and evolve, whether you turn a blind-eye to it or not. The basic principles remained, the foibles had changed. Totally.
During the dark period between Gotch and Joe Stecher, the fans of the 20's and 30's looked back at scorn at those guys in that period. Because they knew those matches had been fixed. They thought the matches that Stecher, Londos, and Lewis had were real, genuine shoots because that was part of the work. Just like decades later fans though the matches between Thesz and Gagne were real. Also part of the work. Savage didn't have to worry about that because fans were aware of the choreographed nature of wrestling. All he had to do was entertain. He didn't have to worry about the "work."
It's not hard to work people into thinking you match is a shoot if it looks EXACTLY like a shoot. Fans bought into Savage hating Hogan because he worked them to believe it was the case, just like Daniel Bryan did recently with Cena, just like CM Punk did with Cena, just like Heyman is doing know with Roman Reigns. Were being worked but many people buy into it because good wrestlers allow you to suspend reality.
Therefore, I disagree. If anything, it meant Savage had to work harder. Encompassing the flamboyancy and trying to harness it deftly to reality is masterful. That's what Savage did regularly. Savage got people to believe he was this larger than life character, more to the point, because he was.
I'm going to ignore the rest because eventually, after we're done arguing ability, which has been proven moot,
Hardly.
we're going to come back to drawing power and making money. Which has been the point of being a pro wrestler since Gotch/Hack. Londos was better at making money than Savage.
The two are completely incomparible. They are at the very most on a par with each other. Working within the confines of each individual business set-up, neither could've achieved more.
While possessing all the skill, charisma, and ability, but without the evolution [or I guess I should say exposure] of the industry.
As much as he could muster anyway.
