Matt D

It matters differently to different people. BUT you can condition the audience to just about anything. Spike and Rey both had giant killer gimmicks and they were put over a few huge guys and it put that doubt in people's mind when they went up against Awesome or Nash. Maybe they COULD do it.

To me, the Summerslam match is weird. It's got this strange pace and the theatrics are over the top compared to VII, not in the concept but just in how the two guys MOVE. It's not slow motion necessarily but they were wrestling really BIG. It might be for the stadium but no one else in the show was doing that. And the crowd eats it up SO much too.

Has anyone ever pointed out specific things that Hogan did like that? I'd be really curious in reading that level of in depth analysis of him. I think for decades our community disregarded him as a rule, and would NEVER do that, just based on his push, his lack of moves, and the superman comebacks. It wasn't "against the rules" to deep analyze Hogan matches, but I think it was more along the lines of "just unthinkable." No one would even consider doing it.

That makes a big difference. It's okay that you don't care to see it. That's understandable. I just think that a match could be put together well enough and smartly enough to make it work. That is the JOY of pro wrestling.

What? Look Bryan is smart enough and good enough and working with the agents and Brock and Heyman and whoever, I think they could absolutely put together a match where Bryan wins and wins cleanly. I don't think they'd WANT to do that, but it's completely and utterly doable. I mean I'd have SOME problem with Hornswaggle going over Lesnar, but that's about my limit. A guy with the background as Bryan? Absolutely. You could do it a half dozen ways. Speed v strength, Skill v size, overconfident brock, extreme bodypart working, Brock being rusty at pro wrestling, DB cheating at every turn like Flair, Or just sheer stubborn fighting spirit by DB leading to Brock getting frustrated and making a mistake. If people can go over Big Show they can go over Lesnar. He's not some kind of holy godking because he spent time really hitting people in the face. Wrestling is fiction and it's all in the presentation and build..

There's a certain timing to it all too, to know when to make the comeback, to know how much to give and when, to know what the fans want and exactly what to give them, to know how long to sit in a hold, etc. To READ a crowd. Now, I guess the argument is that Hogan was so over that he could have spent 30 seconds less or 30 seconds more in a hold and it wouldn't have mattered.

If they really wanted Sheamus to be THE GUY, then this was probably their chance. I think with the right presentation almost anyone could work in the ring with a guy like Lesnar. You just need to write it carefully and build it smartly. If they wanted to turn Ziggler face for some reason, for instance, I think it could have worked with Brock.

Is Summerslam more expensive than a normal PPV?

I really like Savage's work in Savage vs Hogan and the general layout. But yes, I hate the finish. To cap off the year's worth of story, it's good, but then they needed Savage as their top heel for the next two years, basically, so yeah. Granted, the addition of Sherri was huge. I especially love the short period between when he took on Sherri and when he got the crown and became a real parody of himself.

Yeah, it's 12-29 that I really like. In my HEAD it was just the third match in the series. The first time around was end of October, then End of November, then end of December.

Ok, I'm trying to figure out what I meant. As best as I can remember this, we definitely have 4 Hogan vs Flair matches, the Dayton handheld, the San Fran handheld, the first MSG match, and the second MSG match. I want to say that we have another handheld in January or Feb somewhere (maybe non-title if in Feb), after they'd gone around the horn once or twice but before the tag matches with Piper. It was longer and had way more Flair offense but a definitive Hogan victory. i remember liking it way more than the others. But I can't put the pieces together right now. EDIT: Looking at results, I don't see Hogan pinning Flair at all one-on-one. So I must just be thinking of the SECOND MSG match, which felt like a third one to me because of the handhelds I saw before hand. It was the third or fourth time I saw the match (as the first two were very similar). He pinned Flair in the tag matches with Roddy and Taker, so that must be what I'm getting THAT visual confused with. Sorry. I do wish we had this from a Superstars taping though: WWF @ Amarillo, TX - Civic Center - January 28, 1992 WWF Superstars taping: Hulk Hogan & Randy Savage defeated Jake Roberts & the Berzerker (sub. for the Undertaker) I bet that was really cool if it went more than 5 minutes. Nord is probably my favorite single WWF guy to watch in 92.

Yes, but you've always been an extreme outlying entity.

You're an empiricist and i'm a theorist, I guess.* I have no idea if that's accurate.

I made it black and white, but i doubt it is. There are different elements of execution. Timing is way more important to me than believable strikes/contact/stiffness for instance.

It's not hogan that changed. It's us.

There's actually a lot of stuff in the first few WWE years I haven't seen. I like most of the Slaughter stuff (I know, dates). Hogan v Earthquake is the best match on SS 90. I like the third MSG Flair match. i love the Orndorff cage match. I'll double back later.

What maters more? What happens in the match or how it's executed?

His corkscrew elbow had to be a revelation in 1984.

I do wish I knew who came up with the idea to use the stairs.

I think there was a curiosity factor for the diehards on how they would present Brock, how his style has changed, how they were going to book the thing, etc. I don't think that it was enough, necessarily, to warrant a buy a month after the inflated Mania price.

pay attention to my talking point! Patterson vs Anderson! The guys laying out the big matches matter. I'm only partially kidding.

I'll say this. I think Cena would be just as good in 1988. In some ways, even better as a total act, since his promos would have been against the screen and shorter

I may have been speaking more generally.

Why? Because opportunity matters to me. What the wrestler actually does with the opportunity given matters. You watch enough matches with someone, you see how they move, why they move, and you can extrapolate. It's the ten minute vs thirty minute match argument. So long as you have ENOUGH matches to work off, you can extrapolate. Some guys aren't put in a position to have as many great matches. Talent does not always rise in wrestling, because what the general audience is looking for isn't always what we're looking for. Completely alternatively, isn't this argument, in some ways, Pat Patterson vs Arn Anderson?

I'll take attributes over output anyday.