Matt D

So every Hogan match had the same opening gambit? Same finish? Or did he have a few different basic types depending on which match in the series it was, what they planned on doing for the rematch, whether Hogan wanted to open hot kicking the shit out of the heel, or wanted the heel to go out on top to set up some early payback spots? By template I don't mean a rigid form where all using the same template are identical. Simply that you get the sense you're watching the Square or the Circle or the Rectangle, and while some of the coloring inside the form are different depending on the opponent, it's a pretty simple form they're filling out. Hell, I'm not even talking just about his big matches. I'm more talking about house show match after house show match after house show match that I've watched over the past few years. His 1984 matches, especially those that are a bit longer, tend to meander around a bit. They're not yet the tighter Hogan Match that we see by 1986. His longer matches after that, such as Mania '89 against Savage and Mania '90 against Warrior, aren't really Hogan Matches. It's one reason I don't think the 1989 match is very good relative to some of the better Hogan-Savage matches in the WWF: it's not tight, tends to ramble around and lose focus, and is pretty flat in stretches. The match with Warrior kind of worked by being something different. But neither was remotely close to a typical Hogan house show match you can pop in from 1986-90, or really even a SNME match. John I was mainly poking fun at the dire consequences of babbling about Andre before, BUT... We're really talking about different things here. For the sake of my previous comments, I'm only interested in 89-92 Big Match Hogan. That was the time frame I was thinking about and I was thinking how much effort was seemingly put into laying those matches out and the fact that I really do feel an evolutionary strand running through everything from WM V on. So we're really talking about different things. I actually tend to agree with you when it comes to circa-86 house shows, depending on who he was up against and what part of the feud they were in. To me, 89 with Savage is a turning point because that's when the kicking out of the opponent's finisher really became part of the Hulk Up. I know he did it before but rarely on TV like that or in so big a venue. By the way, the only section of that Savage match I actively love relative to the earlier matches, is Savage's offense on the outside on Hogan. There's a real sense of desperation and almost paranoia, even though he was on top at that point in the match. Anyway, after Wrestlemania V, I feel like you can't judge Hogan's matches easily against the rest of the card. It becomes comparing tennis to badminton. Same basic goal, different rules, different tools, different feel. The narrative issue that they had to over come was that even the illusion of drama was sucked out of Hogan's matches. He kicked out of Savage's elbowdrop. They had to figure out where to go from there. And the answers that they came up with were pretty interesting. For the PPVs, at least, the storyline of the feud was always a key component of the match, and generally where the artificial vulnerability came from. They had Zeus be impervious to chairshots and take Hogan out with the multiple net-wringers. Quake injured him (and everyone else) with the sitdown splash, which meant they could basically rerun the Andre bodyslam psychology AND have Hogan kick out of a built-up finisher. Slaughter for WM was built up as being willing to do anything to keep the belt, basically that he was going to cheat and use chemical warfare and what not, since a DQ wouldn't cost him it, which played out in the match, along with Hogan's righteous patriotic fury (which has him far more aggressive than usual). The two feuds in this era where Hogan was NOT in some sort of storyline based peril, Perfect and Flair, both of which were about ego-driven revenge and putting a loudmouth in his place, actually feel out of place and off, probably because they are lacking that element. If you watch the PPV matches, they're interesting because they each have to deal with the problem raised by Hogan kicking out of the elbowdrop. Moreover, I do feel like there's some evolution between them (which was my point to begin with). I'm not sure who's putting them together, Lanza or Patterson or Strongbow or Vince and Hogan, but I think there are lessons learned between the matches and they're aware of what they're doing with them. It's why you do sort of get escalation, whether it be the table spot being introduced for Summerslam 90, or Hogan going up to the top turnbuckle at Wrestlemania VII. And it really culminates with the two Taker matches in Fall of 91. There wasn't much storyline build here. It just had a name (The Gravest Challenge) and the general aura of the Undertaker. They could have cycled Taker in to Summerslam 91 easily enough to set it up (He was feuding with Warrior after all and I want to say there was even some interaction with Slaughter at one point in the build), but they didn't, and without that sort of storyline weakness for Hogan, they had to lay the match out differently. And they did. Taker cuts Hogan off at EVERY point just by goozling him to end every hope spot. It's one of those brilliant matches that I would have hated as a kid because it's so simple and so little actually happens but it's so effective. And Hogan puts on a great performance at This Tuesday in Texas, where he's so fearful of the choke and spends the whole match desperately trying to avoid it. Obviously the exception here is the Warrior match which is really its own animal. Anyway, I'm not sure if evolution is really the word, but "escalation of threat" might fit. I do feel that they were well aware of the PPV audience's preconceptions and factored in previous matches when laying out the next feud/match. I didn't feel that way as a kid living through it but looking back and watching this stuff in context, I don't think I'm reading too much into it. It's just a case where I'm not sure to give the credit to Hogan or Vince or Patterson or what.

I found the Edge/Jericho cage match from last year sort of fascinating. The only thing I can really compare it to is GAB 91 Luger/Windham. The latter is a cage match both without an issue and with heel/face lines blurred. What you get is a bloodless cage match where the guys aren't trying to kill each other. They want to win the belt, not bloody one another or hurt the other guy. The cage turns into something of a prop, something to be indirectly used instead of directly. With Edge/Jericho, they had an issue, but they were stuck in the PG environment and they couldn't use the cage in the more traditional feud-ending ways. So it's a bloodless cage match. Obviously given who they were, they couldn't work it like a Bundy/Hogan match or something. I thought they at least tried to make the most of what they had to work with despite the limitations. I'm not saying it was great or anything but it was interesting and I was glad I watched it.

In Feb 85, Mr. Pogo was Central States champ, Jannetty had two belts, and Kimala was booked. Did KC have TV during this period? Does any of this stuff survive?

Sorry guys. I'm going to hold off from explaining why I think Hogan's big matches in the late 80s/early 90s didn't fit into templates but instead followed a rather straight evolutionary path. Obviously no good will come of it.

I missed that before, but I'm really into a watching things in context phase right now. I'd rather spend an hour watching a syndi show full of wimpy matches than 2-3 great out of context matches. It just fits my watching habits and attention span better right now. I'm fine jumping around though. I'm watching 85 NWA, early 93 USWA, fall 93 WCW, and spring 92 WWF right now all at once (and a little current FCW when I get around to it too). It's not that jarring. Well, going back to the spring 92 WWF stuff is tough but that's only because I JUST hit my last MSG card so I'm looking at ONLY Syndies and PPVs.

Hell, Lawler infers it in some way too. "The last northerner to come down here talking like that was Andy Kaufman and we all know how that ended."

End of career Andre is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen a guy more limited in his ability to move but who made so much of what he had (which was quite a bit, just not conventional). He seemed to know what to do in every second of every match to make a match effective. And his selling and expressions were just great. I think, for instance, the Warrior/Andre SNME match (which I think was WON worst match of the year) was REALLY smartly put together, and don't get me started (again) about the MSG House Show between Colossal Connection and Demos.

I'm watching 93 USWA and this stuff is all new to me. I get that they had their big shows on Monday nights and taped the tv to promote it... Saturday morning, was it? But when they show footage from the Monday night shows, it's clipped but announced. Did they tape the entirety of those shows as well?

http://www.justin.tv/tsteck160/b/276859807 Okay, first off this is worth watching because anything Dusty does on WCW Prime is worth watching and the first minute is pretty funny but what I want to know is just who the heck STAR BLAZER was? His stuff was not pretty here. This should only be up for a few days probably.

So I actually got my hands on these through other means months ago, which means that now that everyone has these my relative usefulness around here drops considerably. It takes forever to get through one of these. I'm still on the Jan. 85 one. But I found this on a WWF show: "They held a 23 match card in Hartford, CT on 11/23 not even for tapings. They had promised one of those brilliant idea cage Battle Royals, but when fans got there they found out the state athletic commission wouldn't allow the idea so instead they had 19 (you got it right) cage matches, all of which were very short and ended with either walks out the door or in two cases over-the-tops."

This might just be my gut but looking at results and Dave's comments you get the feeling that the House Shows were better by late, late 84. Piper was healthier again. Windham and Rotunda had shown up and along with Bret were in the undercard. Tama was showing promise. Buddy Rose was back in. Heenan had arrived. The Briscos were in matches.

Heenan tells the story (and I'm sure most of you've heard it since Heenan retells lots of his stories in multiple places) about having a suggestion early on about Payne/Jack vs Nasties and some way to start the show and Bischoff telling him to just announce and let them worry about things. And that was basically it about him caring. I like Tony/Jesse but I feel like Monsoon (and maybe JR but I haven't heard much of that recently) was the only person who could handle Jesse. Both Vince and even more so Tony, get utterly steamrolled by him. There are so many lines where Jesse will say something and Tony will just end up totally at a loss. Sometimes, when he was feeling particularly brave, he'd shoot out a comeback that made no sense. you got the impression that Jesse liked him though.

This is how I read this at first (added word bolded) and I was like, "What?" But to answer your question, no. There are Rougeaus/Bushwhackers matches that really aren't bad and that work in a "wrestler vs goofy brawler" sort of way. They're comedy matches, but there was a spot on the card for that and they're well plotted out. I've found that I'm far more tolerable to Bushwhacker matches when I'm watching an entire card and see how the match fits in.

I obviously feel very strongly about Demolition, though there are really just all sorts of strange nostalgic backlash there. Do people crap on John Nord? I think Craig Pittman was more lost in the 1995 shuffle than anything else. Okay, I've got one. I think there's a general consensus that Hercules Hernandez really wasn't any good later in his career that I would contest. He had a number of pretty good singles matches in 91 on MSG cards and PTW and his work with Roma was pretty good. If nothing else, he was doing the coolest inverted atomic drop in the world then.

Dave gushing about his first live exposure to UWF in the January 85 Observer is really fascinating stuff. I was going to put up some excerpts but I'm not even sure what to pick. A lot of talk about not knowing the meaning of the word "selling," no rest holds, no working the crowd, the extreme realism, being as close to a shoot as one could get. Okay, I'll go with this, re the Super Tiger vs Yoshiaki Fujiwara match: "One of the reasons I enjoy wrestling is that I can see all the visual violence and never have to deal with the consequences (brain damage, permanent injuries) as in boxing."

The Edge/Punk trade was brutal. They let Kane sweep Undertaker something like three PPVs in a row and he had a ton of momentum. Then came Edge.

Was it the move to Syfy that hurt Smackdown or losing Christian, Matt Hardy, Gallows and Punk within the span of a couple of months (while only having Rey on and off)?

I was really into WWECW from Feb 09 to Feb 10 but that's obviously gone. NXT has had some of the most entertaining moments in US Wrestling over the last few years but it's had just as many unwatchable ones. And most of the entertaining moments are along the lines of satire or trainwrecks. The biggest story of the year to me as a fan is the sheer ease of access in watching old YEARS worth of wrestling online. So I too am looking backwards.

If Helms wasn't totally and utterly broken down in 09 he could have been over HUGE with the much younger audience. He could have been a merchandising machine second only to Rey. As it was, he was in slow motion and had that weird grim and gritty version of the costume.

Since I was looking at it, the 84 Yearbook (Jan. 85) issue of the observer was really down on WWF expansion, saying that WWF were retrenching, a lot of the guys they had brought in (re: Freebirds, for instance) had already left, and they had basically failed save for hurting the drawing power of some other organizations (like the AWA). I'm looking forward to seeing things a few months later. Also re: Dave in the Wrestler of the year voting: "If the WWF had lost Hulk for whatever reason, whonever(sic) his replacement would have been could do every bit as well at the gate."

It was definitely discussed at the time. In the Jan 85 WON, when mentioning how crummy Hogan was in the ring Mr. Mike immediately followed with "It's not all his fault. Consider his schedule. It would make Ric Flair wince."

People wildly underestimate Gorilla Monsoon's ability to make them moderately enjoyable.

Not 96, but I saw Malenko/Benoit vs Guerrero/Mr. JL from late 95 recently and it wasn't a match at all. It was just a spectacle. In 95 I would have loved it, of course, but it was just frustrating to watch now. Also, I found it really funny for some reason that Colt Cabana didn't know who Sato was when Waltman was trying to explain that Hakushi had a manager during Cabana's podcast.

It's interesting to see Dave sour on Hogan in 84. For the first few months of the reign he'll be sure to note that Hogan's matches, while short, had the best "action" on the WWF cards. I think it was the Studd feud that did it. By the yearbook in January, when summing up, he's ... well.. "For the most part, Hogan's title reign has been a disappointment. He drew tremendously well for the first few months as a champion in the Northeast. In other parts of the country, his drawing power wasn't that noticable from the beginning. Things got worse as the year progressed as his run was ragged by his travel schedule and began to talk like he wanted out. His matches were the subject of the most criticism. Closely scrutinized as champion, it became evident he was severely lacking in the two areas most World champs are noted for, stamina and wrestling ability. Every match looked like a repeat performance. Hogan would get kicked around, bleed, then comes the infamous leg drop out of nowhere and it's over, usually in less than 10:00." He then restates that Hogan's the most popular wrestler in the world and talks about how that impacts his ego. Also interesting, he says that, in general, houses were higher all around the country in 83 than in 84.