Nick Bockwinkel

[Matt D]

I understand where you're coming from Childs, but for me, it's a non issue because of the fact we see him in so many roles. The evidence we have is exactly the evidence we need. In some ways it's easier for me to judge him than someone who played only a few roles in his career, but we have all of that career. We can see Bockwinkel from so many different angles, far more than most wrestlers we have many more years of, I'd say. We have evidence of him dealing with so many different wrestling challenges. For me, it's more than enough.

[Childs]

Question, Matt: If a guy convinces you he has a skill, do you care at all if he demonstrates it 100 times as opposed to 50 times?

[Matt D]

There is a far bigger difference between 3 and 50 and 50 and 100 to me, especially lacking evidence where he actively does NOT convince me.

[Jimmy Redman]

(I feel like it's a shame that people have already started voting. We just had a case for Michaels go up a couple of days ago and a case for Funk go up yesterday or the day before. We're in the final argument stage of things and parts of the jury are voting already. I'm going to try to rush this out then. I wish I could do try to match that great Satanico post, but no can do. It's a busy week, but here goes:)

 

To be fair, it is kind of our fault for leaving it this late.

 

And regardless of whether you change any minds or not, it's still a great read, and I'm still eager to read any cases people want to put forward for their guys.

[JerryvonKramer]

In some ways, I think Bock's case has the fewest weaknesses of any of the major #1 contenders.

 

Let's say he was 35 rather than 45 when he did all the stuff Matt listed, would we really care as much about the footage we don't have? I do think he has more than enough on tape.

 

More than any other guy I've ever seen, he was able to change his approach to a match to fit the context. So when he went to Japan and had long matches for Baba, he'd chain wrestle and work the mat (some people find that boring, but he could do it with the best of them). When he went to Memphis he was happy to brawl and work some schtick. When he has to work as a chickenshit against Hogan or Crusher or any other of Verne's monster babyfaces, he could do that. But when he had to work as a more dominant "master wrestler" type, or a sprint brawl, or a gimmick match of any sort, he could do that too.

 

Complete all-rounder and the closest thing to a wrestling "maestro" that there has been, in my view.

[Childs]

I don't think 45 vs. 35 matters as far as his taped output, which is on the low side compared to other top 20 guys. The absent footage looms larger because he had such a long career and we're missing what we presume to be his physical peak. But it's not the volume of what's missing that matters to me in the ranking; it's the volume of what we have. And when I compare him to a Flair or a Tenryu or a Hansen, he's lower on output.

 

I agree he's one of the most complete candidates in terms of demonstrated skill, and he's a top 20-guy for me, just not the No. 1 contender he probably would have been if we had a more complete accounting of his career.

[Matt D]

I've been very vocal about my issues with Hansen's physical peak, especially the "home promotion+physical peak+height of footage" conundrum, so that's fair. We don't know. From what we have, it's POSSIBLE that he spent his more of his physical prime giving too much to his opponents and bumping up and down like some sort of 1990 Mr. Perfect, and if we had it, it would hurt his #1 case (though not his #10 case or whatever). There are hints of that in his matches with Verne, but they're just hints and I feel mostly confident with the evidence we have.

 

Yes it's on the low side, but there are, as I said, lots of angles, and none of the glaring faults I, personally, find in a lot of the other #1 contenders.

 

I completely respect and understand your opinion here though.

[Childs]

Yeah, it's not a criticism, more of a yearning, because I love the guy.

[JerryvonKramer]

I am of the view -- and I think it is probably controversial -- that if we had a more complete account of Bock's early career it would likely hurt his case because people would fall asleep watching it. People are ridiculously down on early 80s Jumbo, people do not have the patience for longer NWA-style bouts these days and complain that they are dry and boring. And I think Bock worked more like that in the 70s.

 

His tag stuff with Stevens in the 70s actually adds very little to his case, and I watched two discs worth.

[Grimmas]

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

[soup23]

Comparing Bock vs. Flair 80's as their two respective peaks seems fair. I know for me that makes it a pretty easy choice and this is someone that enjoyed Bock greatly during the AWA set.

[Loss]

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

 

Those are directly inverse career trajectories.

[Jetlag]

Wait people hate long NWA style matches now? When did that happen? Bock vs. Jumbo from Hawaii was like that and it's my favourite Bock match by a mile.

[JerryvonKramer]

Wait people hate long NWA style matches now? When did that happen? Bock vs. Jumbo from Hawaii was like that and it's my favourite Bock match by a mile.

I've heard several people in different places say that they no longer really have the patience for that style of longer, slower NWA match.

[Grimmas]

 

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

 

Those are directly inverse career trajectories.

 

So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same?

[WingedEagle]

 

 

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

 

Those are directly inverse career trajectories.

 

So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same?

 

 

Sarcasm or you believe this?

[Matt D]

I don't think that it's productive to assume that Bockwinkel didn't have an overall strong 70s. My worry would be in a totally different direction than Parv's.

[Grimmas]

 

 

 

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

 

Those are directly inverse career trajectories.

 

So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same?

 

 

Sarcasm or you believe this?

 

A question. One guy got great earlier and then when his athletics failed him had a down period. The other took longer to get great, but once they did they stayed great until they retired. What is wrong with treating a slow starter to a slow finisher?

[Childs]

I'm not seeing how this discussion has much to do with Bockwinkel. The issue isn't that he was a lesser worker early in his career; it's that we don't really know.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm not seeing how this discussion has much to do with Bockwinkel. The issue isn't that he was a lesser worker early in his career; it's that we don't really know.

There is a good chunk of 70s Bock on tape. Like at least to fill about 7 or 8 discs I'd say, if not more. As much as there is of, say, Jack Brisco period.

[Childs]

There is and I get that, but in terms of age, Bock's '65-'75 are the equivalent of Flair's '80s, and we can't do a remotely fair comparison between the two. That's a significant issue when we're trying to figure out the top of the ballot. Maybe Bock's last six years were his best but I can't say that with any confidence.

[Matt D]

It'd be a bigger problem for me if I was trying to put anyone over him.

[WingedEagle]

 

 

 

 

Why can't we think of prime Bockwinkel as the 80s and treat 70s Bock like 2000s Flair?

 

Those are directly inverse career trajectories.

 

So? One is a great peak and the other is a down period for the guy. It just happens to be at different ends of their careers. Why not treat them the same?

 

 

Sarcasm or you believe this?

 

A question. One guy got great earlier and then when his athletics failed him had a down period. The other took longer to get great, but once they did they stayed great until they retired. What is wrong with treating a slow starter to a slow finisher?

 

 

Because they are not remotely the same thing.

[Grimmas]

I think it's fair some people are better in their physical peak, while others are better after they have gained a lot of experience.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm not saying in any single way that Bock was worse in the 70s, I'm saying that knowing how people are low on stuff like early 80s Jumbo and how there has been a general shift away of liking hour long matches and slower bouts in our little corner of the fandom -- and why not name names, Phil Schneider and Will, would be two pretty influential and highly respected guys in that camp -- there might be a shift in perception that Bock was a bit boring.

 

Like I know, for example, that some people were lower on him in Japan in general (outside of the Robinson match), and that is partly cos he was working those longer matches in the slower style.

 

Less a comment on Bock's ability and more an idea about the general tastes of our voter base.

 

And I know there are still guys around -- Pete, Childs, OJ, me, many others -- who still don't mind watching these styles of matches. But I don't think it can really be denied that there's been a slight shift towards shorter, more intense bouts and brawling over the past however many years. Which is probably why Stan Hansen is going to replace Jumbo as the #1, you could see that as symbolic of that broader shift.