D
Deleted member 449757
Guest
I don't really care either way whether a fight is worked or a shoot. Doesn't make a difference to me as long as it's good. I do find interesting though that Karl Gotch once said that his biggest problem with Funaki was that he would care too much about putting others over instead of wrestling properly (he named Rickson Gracie as an example of someone with no skill who got put over by Funaki though, lmao).This is the problem with Pancrase: Absolutely nothing is "official" about the works. It's all hearsay, it's all second- or third-hand info, plenty of people make up BS about people they don't like - one guy, not sure if he was a Lion's Den guy or not, claimed that Frank's entire career was all worked victories! - and nothing is archived anywhere for easy reference. Even I'm just going off of memory and shit that I've accrued in the last 20 years. The only thing that's corroborated by absolutely everyone is that every decision was made by Funaki and Suzuki and it went only as far from them as Ken. Funaki and Suzuki were in charge and Ken was their protégé and champ. Anyone else who talks like an authority is lying. And the only info that's trickled out over the years that I recall is as follows:
1) There were absolutely no works, no carrying, no nothing for that first show. That was their debut as a real fight org and they wanted to really fight. That's why the entire card had only 15 minutes of fighting and the entire show beginning to end with all entrances and resets lasted 57 minutes. That worried the pro-wrestling showmen, they didn't want fans to feel like they didn't get a full show experience or get their money's worth, so that planted the seed for maybe incorporating some pro-wrestling elements like carrying or working.
2) There were absolutely no works, no carrying, no nothing for the King of Pancrase tournament. That was the culmination of their efforts at making a legit combat sport org. Though there was some rope escape shenanigans to help Suzuki edge Matt Hume on points and move on in the tournament
3) The fights that I've seen most often listed and most plausibly explained to be works are Ken's victory over Matt Hume (Hume was hurt and didn't want to fight Ken at a disadvantage, but he also didn't want to have the entire match canceled, so he agreed to just do a work with Ken), Ken's loss to Funaki in their second fight (Ken was fighting in UFC 3 a week later, plus Funaki had just accidentally lost to Ken's new Lion's Den protégé and debuting Pancrase fighter Jason Delucia, so this sort of squared things moving on in the "Road to the Championship" series of events heading into the King of Pancrase tournament), Ken's loss to Suzuki in their second fight (Pancrase hated Ken competing in the UFC while he was the Pancrase champ, and they wanted him to intentionally lose and give up the title before his UFC 5 Superfight with Royce but Ken refused to lose to Bas who he'd already beat, but then when they kept hounding him ahead of his UFC 6 Superfight with Severn, he said fuck it, gave his title up to Suzuki, and focused on being UFC champ), and Funaki/Suzuki (they started Pancrase together, and while they wanted to be the best, they also wanted to focus on building the org together rather than fight each other, so they gave the fans a show and did a pro-wrestling throwback).
As an academic, though, it drives me nuts that I can't cite any sources, that I don't have verifiable proof that I can provide for corroboration. The Japanese culture of secrecy really fucks things up. I wish someone would write a book and get the full scoop, get on the record interviews with everyone and get all the stories and info. But alas, this is just the shit that I've heard most often and most believably.
BTW if you're interested: Ken Shamrock interview where he talks about his Pancrase fights (including Hume):


