BrianB

How about Taker being from Death Valley?

Definitely a really good match. Pretty favorable reviews in the MDA as well, but for some reason not one that's often brought up on Hogan's greatest hits list. I think the reason is if you're trying to sell someone on Hogan, you'd probably not point them to his time as the top babyface in a company where he had such transparently astroturf support from fans. No matter how good the matches are, the act of Hulk Hogan never felt more insincere than it did in 1993 WWF and 1994-1995 WCW. I know this is a big bump, but it's worth mentioning imo I'd agree with your point for Hogan especially regarding 1995. But 1994? You could say the same thing about Ricky Steamboat vs. Ric Flair in 1989, especially given how much fans wanted Flair to be the face and steamboat got booed and the program didn't draw, but nobody rags on Steamboats run during that period, mostly, probably because the matches were fantastic. Yet nobody says don't sell me on Steamboat based on his WCW work. The Clash match aside, Flair and Hogan had some nice matches in 1994 (not Flair-Steamboat level for sure), and WCW's business took an upturn, although not a massive one during that period..

I think so too, but that doesn't make that Starrcade finish any less baffling.

Strong show. Keith also had a strong accent, and was a good guest too. Oz will never not be hilarious.

This show has been fantastic and finished fantastic on the tour. Starrcade 1999 and 2000 were incredibly frustrating shows, but that's captured in these past few pods. They really dived deep and ahrd, and by the end exposed the Russo charlatan BS and all the other big miscues WCW made.

This.

If actor can also mean actress, then how about Meryl Streep for HBK (not a PWI favorite I know) or Kobashi? Undeniable career and resume but definitely a strong emphasis on "show stealing" or epic syle (albeit in two different ways for HBK and Kobashi), or in actor lingo, "winning the scene." How about Terry Funk as Gary Oldman? Amazing acting range--Terry was great at being a face or a heel and different takes on each. Plus, longevity, somewhat under-recognized but extremely respected by anybody in the industry, and not that often given major lead parts, but he delivers very strong when put there. Both could be very over the top, especially in "crazy" parts, and could get pigeonholed into those spots, but always good at it and usually plenty of depth, entertainment, and work to it, if you play attention.

Another strong pod. I've also wondered about Rude's 1992 being overrated and having just recently watched this show for the first time myself, it does seem like a logical time to start to ask that question. I haven't seen enough of the rest of Rude's 1992 yet to really have a definite opinion yet. I have noticed some of things Parv commented on for Rude's weak points during this show. I'll be curious what you guys think of Steamboat's year after Starrcade. And if, say, Sting's match with Vader also impacts your opinion on Rude. I haven't watched hardly any SMW, so no comment there, but I put Jessie and Bobby Heenan neck and neck as the best two color guys. Different styles but both top notch. Jesse was the more consistent, though he did fall off a bit after Hogan showed up. Heenan at his peak was just hilarious and his chemistry with Monsoon was unmatched. I also loved him in 1993 when he didn't have great guys to work with, but he was maybe at his peak in terms of one-liners, jokes, and just being extremely quick. Personally, I'll pick Heenan, but there's no denying that he fell off quite a bit and after the NWO showed up and Bischoff didn't want him supporting them he really fell off with only a few moments each show.

I've been waiting awhile to get into this thread! I know it's dead atm, but just to chime in some. I think the analogy to GWE has to be adjusted somewhat especially on Great Match Theory vs. Great Movie Theory. First of all, if you want to go by great match theory, it's an easier fit for movie directors than actors because directors have more control over the quality of a film, almost always, just like how a wrestler has more control over how good his promos are or match quality. Actors, for the most part, don't have that kind of authorship over their movies, unless they are huge movie stars, and usually that's still only for certain projects and while they are on top. For that reason, I'd go more by looking at performances within the movies rather than simply if the movie is good or bad because so much can depend on the script, bad editing, poor directing, etc.. Sometimes an actor can be awesome in a shitty movie (for instance, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Along Came Polly), and sometimes a movie can be quite good despite an average or weak performance. Not bad :-) ... O'Toole did have some major stinkers on his resume (Caligula, Supergirl a.o.), but I guess you'd call that "old man Flair" and then the last few years where O'Toole did stuff like Venus would be Flair's retirement match and some other ok stuff... I could see that. What about Flair = Jack Nicholson? Caligula isn't a good movie, but that's not on O'Toole, I think, even if he is giving another variation of the yelling King performances he had given before. Jack Nicholson I can definitely see. He got into the movies early, but he was at an older age when he started to become a star and has a lot of varied performances throughout the 70s. Then basically he becomes more and more Jack being Jack the movie star, which is awesome, but somewhat descended into self-parody at times. However, for the most part, if we look at movies as the measuring stick he stayed pretty consistent whereas Flair dropped off more. But you could argue Jack wasn't as great in some of those later roles, even the ones that worked--I liked him in the Departed, but I know some people aren't crazy about that performance even if they love the movie. Their performance styles are very different but when I think of Flair and comparing him to an actor: I think of Flair as Robert De Niro. An extremely ridiculous and nice run of performances from the early/mid 70s then he starts to downshift slightly, even though he's still in many good movies for awhile, and then after about 1998 (Ronin/Jackie Brown--I love that movie!) he descends into comedy--which can be entertaining--or just phoning in it and declining. It's really striking how quickly he descened into Showtime and Rocky and Bullwinkle territory and then barely ever dug himself out. But, here and there in the last few years, he's churned out some solid, if not spectacular performances--for instance, Silver Linings Playbook and the Intern (bad movie, but solid De Niro.) Not great, but some nice flashes. Still...you look at his resume, and there's no disputing he has to be up there in the GOAT film actor discussion, and probably the guy most actors today would pick. Duvall is a good call for Arn. I'd argue Philip Seymour Hoffman fits too, although he's become more acclaimed and recognized due to his death. Both were usually put into smaller supporting roles, and both were extremely consistent. Depending what you think of Eastwood, I'd argue you could compare him to Stan Hansen. He's definitely got a particular style and doesn't range too much out of it, except occasionally, but he's so good at it and iconic that he can succeed with 2 pitches to force a baseball analogy. Along similar lines, Samuel L. Jackson.