Flipped Your Opinions

[Resident Evil]

As for the original quesiton, I've never flip flopped my opinion on anyone. Some I have changed slightly on but flip flopped? Can't think of anyone.

Really? Even going back to something 20-30 years after you first watched it?

 

You've never flipped your thoughts on a book or movie or record you liked or hated when you were a kid?

 

There's a lot of stuff that I read or watched in college and enjoyed, and now wonder why the hell I was thinking. The old "I was drunk/stoned/high those years" only goes so far.

 

Or stuff when younger. An example:

 

One of the HD channels just aired the debut of the second season of Charlie's Angles. Late night, wasn't sleeping and just killing time flipping channels until I was tired enough to fall asleep. I came across "Angels in Paradise", the first episode after FFM left and it took me back to the summer of 1977 when it first aired. I was 11, and one of the hot topics of the summer was how they were going to replace FFM, who was the hottest thing of all-time (for that year). So this was some major shit at the time. And of course they replaced here with Cheryl Ladd, who became a big star (relatively speaking) in her own right.

 

I've always held the memory that for us 11 year old boys that was a great freaking pair of episodes, and that on Thursday at school we were buzzing about the awesomeness of them and the newest Angel.

 

Some I'm watching Angels in Paradise, and it's pretty damn bad. Jackie is as classy looking as always. Ladd is kind of spunky, but trying to fit in. Kate Jackson is the "leader", the smart one... but she looks fucking WIRED through the hole episode.

 

So I'm not quite getting it... why was this such a big thing for us back them. So I set the DVR to record the second part the next night, since I had no plans to stay up that late again.

 

And I'm watching that one, and it's about as bad as the first half. The guest stars, working a bad fake Italian mob gimick, are horrible. I forgot to mention it was set in Hawaii, and the locals are written in cringe worthy fashion. I'm really scratching my head.

 

Then comes "rescue" time, since the whole plot of the two-parter was the Charlie had been kidnapped and taken to Hawaii with the Angels going to rescue him. He's being held off shore in a yatch by the mobsters. So rescue time... out at sea... with a boat...

 

 

And 33 years later, I remember why it was such a big deal to us 11 year old boys and the episode was great:

 

Cheryl Ladd in the rescue section running around the yatch in a bikini looked GREAT~! in a 1977 context for dumb ass kids just figuring out that girls are GREAT~!

 

That the show was pretty weak, really laughable at times didn't matter. It's not what we were watching for. We wanted to check out the New Angel, and she was off the hook.

 

Having rewatched it for the first time in 33 years, I can say:

 

* Charlie's Angels was another weak 70s show that doesn't age too well

 

* it's got a lot of company along those lines

 

* it was hardly the worst of the old T&A TV that it spawned

 

* Cheryl Ladd does look rather exceptional

 

* I greatly underestimated how great Jackie Smith looked in a bikini as well... but Ladd would have been quite distracting to an 11 year old because her strengths were more obvious shall we say, while Jackie is the type you come to appreciate more as you age

 

Okay, so I've drifted away from the topic and risk Will and Loss getting annoyed with this... but there's a point behind the analogy:

 

I think most of us change or opinions on different things over the years. No doubt there are some that were continue to hold and reafirm. But there are always things we wonder "What in the hell was I thinking?" or realize "Ah... that's what I was thinking... yeah, kinda funny."

 

I think the applies to wrestling as well.

 

I'd think you've watched wrestling long enough, RE, for that to have happened on at least some things. Or perhaps give it another ten years.

 

John

 

Nope, no real signifigant changes in my opinions on wrestling. As far as other forms of entertainment, they have stayed pretty consistant as well though my perspective and enjoyment of things have changed some due to various life experiences.

Tremendoulsy awesome pic by the way.

[jdw]

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.

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

[Johnny Sorrow]

That's funny that you say the 84 Hogan matches meander. I always prefered those Hogan matches as they always came off as him not dominating, but in fact getting his ass kicked for a long time with a hope spot here and there until he was a bloody mess, and THEN doing his comeback. The guys he faced then being Studd, Schultz, Valentine...who else? I know they had him dominate the Sheik in all rematches. Granted, I haven't watched a lot of those matches in a long time, and while typing this I realize I'm listing matches from the first Hulkamania tape. I watched that over and over when it came out, so my opinions and memories are a bit skewed.

[ohtani's jacket]

I agree. It's a much better way to enjoy a style/wrestler/company. I don't watch one-off matches anymore, not that I was ever big on this to begin with.

Really? Interesting. So you're not likely to youtube a match that you might have seen people discussing, because it's a one-off?

 

I can see the point. If one jumps from AJPW 1994 to RAW 1994 (or vice versa), it would be a pretty big culture shock. But then once you get used to the flow, you can appreciate better what's happening. The match works better in context of a worker's development or an ongoing angle or a direction the whole company is taking.

 

What I find is that if I youtube something that I haven't watched a lot of in recent times, it tends to annoy the shit out of me. 90s Joshi is a perfect example. I honestly believe that to enjoy Joshi you have to get into the rhythm of how the workers work (the flow of the match, the way they sell, the saving your partner and breaking up pins, the long finishing stretches, etc.) If you haven't watched it for awhile, it's tough to get back into the swing. The end result (for me anyway) is that I end up hating something I might have tolerated had I watched a whole batch of it.

 

Having said that, sometimes tastes change for unknown reasons. I used to always hate Southern tag teams (don't ask me why, I just did), but when we did the WCW poll the Midnight Express etc. finally clicked for me. I can't explain why.

[Matt D]

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.

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.

[Ditch]

Great post, Matt. The cartoonish nature of Hogan-era WWF often leads people to overlook the very real storytelling they did. For instance, the Hogan vs Warrior promos actually had a point and weren't just coke-fueled gibberish.

[jdw]

That's funny that you say the 84 Hogan matches meander. I always prefered those Hogan matches as they always came off as him not dominating, but in fact getting his ass kicked for a long time with a hope spot here and there until he was a bloody mess, and THEN doing his comeback. The guys he faced then being Studd, Schultz, Valentine...who else? I know they had him dominate the Sheik in all rematches. Granted, I haven't watched a lot of those matches in a long time, and while typing this I realize I'm listing matches from the first Hulkamania tape. I watched that over and over when it came out, so my opinions and memories are a bit skewed.

I understand that Dan Ginnetty found the full version of Hogan-Shultz on World Pro. I'll have to track it down, if I don't already have it in the various World Pro discs that I have. The jump cuts didn't seem to miss a ton, so we'll have to see how much longer it is in full. It was about nine minutes in CHV version. My short review of it in the WWF Thread has Schultz beat him up early (with juice), Hogan comes back to beat him up (with juice), short Schultz comeback, Hogan turns thing to win. My comments are that it's not a Hogan Match yet, but has the elements being developed. Probably closer than some others.

 

I haven't reviewed Hogan-Valentine yet. Actually see a DM link I tossed into an admin section thread on stuff to watch way back in 2008. And I know I have it on Corey's redone Hogan 1984-92 WWF Set (though Hoback's son has all 30+ of those disks at the moment). So it's in the cue.

 

Same goes for Studd. I wanted to watch Bob-Studd first, along with some Andre-Studd that happened before the Hogan-Studd feud started. There are a ton of Hogan-Studd matches over the years.

 

I'd have to sift through my spreadsheet and look through the thread to point to the specific matches that stood out as early, pre-Hogan Matches and proto-Hogan matches. One could see the template existing by the time of the Hogan-Orton from Superstars. My wrap on that was:

 

Okay, setting aside my fun at the expense of Orton (since working the back *and* throat in disjointed fashion was his standard way of working), this was a perfectly decent Hogan Match. Typical three movements of Hogan Kicking Ass, Hogan Selling and Hulking Up To Go Home. The opening was standard stuff to get the crowd into it, even if Bob did about two bumps too many. The transition to Hogan Selling is one of his favorites, especially when his opponents had a manager/second. Bob didn't stay focused on a specific body part in the Hogan Selling section, or instead split it into two mini-sections - work the neck off the Fuji cane shot, then later transition to the back since he had offense to use on that. All that lack of focus does (along with the ropes breaking) is take if from having a chance to be a Really Good Hogan Match to a Decent Enough Hogan Match. Bob brought a variety of goods to the table. With the Superstars cameras rolling, Hogan seemed inspired to sell a bit more theatrically.

 

Let's be honest and admit that Really Good Hogan Matches aren't going to make anyone forget Destroyer vs. Baba, Jumbo vs. Terry, Jumbo vs. Tenryu or Misawa vs. Kawada. Hell, there aren't even going to make one forget Jumbo vs. Animal or Savage vs. Steamboat. On the other hand, a Decent Enough Hogan Match at least has a thought out structure to it the ebbs the crowd properly, doesn't waste any time with rambling around nonsense, or get lost trying to figure out what to do next. This is *effective* work at it's most basic level - connecting with the fans, telling a clear though simple story, and deliving on its own implied goods. It, Hogan and the various pepople who helped lay the formula out, need to get some credit for that. Hogan might not have been the best worker of his era, but he was one of the most effective in working the match his fans wanted to see and delivering it. He didn't do it by laying on the mat while bleeding over the eye like Dusty did. They put a bit more thought in it and kept it tight and focused.

My apologies for the references to Japanese matches that might cause people to roll their eyes. But:

 

* it was 2006, and lord knows that I'm a kinder/gentler poster these days... I probably would have written that just a bit different

 

* I did want to get across a point early in the thread that while I might be saying positive things about Hogan and his matches, people shouldn't over read into it that I'm pimping them as MOTYC or the greatest thing since sliced bread

 

* I wanted to also get across that early the theme of Effective Work

 

I go to the well on Effective Work a lot, and I tend to think that a lot of us over the last 5-10 year have tried to get across a concept along those lines. We're trying to get across what we're praising about something like that TV match between Trip-Rikishi long ago, and spending some time on why it really works. And at times you worry that someone reading it thinks you're putting it up there with Flair-Steamer. Or in praising smart work / layout / structure in a Hogan match that someone thinks you're putting it up there with a MX vs R'n'R match.

 

No, there's another level of basic quality / goodness / solidity to a match where it works well for what it is, moves things long, pulls the crowd in, delivers what it's suppose to, doesn't screw much up. Or a worker who does that.

 

I just use the word "effective" because that's what I see in Hogan when working a solid match, and in some others. What they're doing is effective in putting on a match for their fans.

 

I'm sure that when I've had discussions on Flair and people think I'm ripping him that I've tried to get across a point: for what ever I'm trying to point out as being goofy, I still think Flair is an extremely effective worker. Probably the most in that sense. His matches may not tell a story beyond the most basic (Flair bitches out / gets his ass kicked by the face), he has a shitload of stuff to keep things moving along to pop the crowd. I might cringe these days at Flair bitching out to Tommy Young, I also admit that the spot pops the fans even when they've seen it for the 10th time. On a "hey let's think about this" level, it runs into a quick brick wall: If Tommy can kick the shit out of Ric and does it time-after-time, why has Sting squashed Flair in all these matches yet? But then you hear the crowd pop, and you accept it as a Turn Off Your Mind, Don't Think About It Too Much, Ric Has Stuff To Do moment that the crowd loves... so fuck it, it's an effective spot. Ric's just about the best at that, as he has a Ton Of Stuff.

 

Now a paragraph like that can annoy folks, especially when the word putting over Flair is also being attached to Hogan. But think about this for a moment:

 

Flair shoves Tommy, Tommy Flair back, Ric bitch-bumps for it yet again.

 

Crowd pops

 

Hogan is huffin' and a puffin', Heels punches aren't working, Hulk's up and a waggin' the finger.

 

Crowd pops

 

There's not a great deal of difference between the Flair Ref Bitch Bump and the Hulk Up. Neither is "believable" for the folks into the Suspend Belief stuff. Worse still, both are signature spots that fans saw over and over and over again, so they know what's coming. But... they pop the crowd anyway.

 

Effective spots, effective work.

 

Doesn't mean Hogan > Flair, or Hogan = Flair.

 

But I do think it means we should take a step back and understand a lot of what annoyed us about Hogan was actually pretty effective work, and in turn a lot of what made Flair great~! is actually little more than effective work rather than epic, deep, great storytelling and work. They both were pretty simple workers, knowing what worked for them and their fans.

 

Sorry for the long post. More fun than doing work on a Friday morning.

 

John

[tomk]

I remember you praising the effectiveness of the work in a Pat Patterson v Rikishi match (where people confused praise of effective work for something more). Don't remember praising a Trip one.Perhaps the Patterson match was used as a contrast with a lesser Trip match.

[jdw]

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.

Okay, and understood.

 

My Hogan focus has largely been limited into the four corners of the 80s, working off the original DVDVR 80s project, my thoughts on those 100 matches, and trying to work through other matches that may be worth checking out in that period or might want to be avoided.

 

It's a little tricky to figure out the big matches for Hogan in the 80s. Setting aside the tag at SummerSlam and Survivors, these seem pretty obvious:

 

02/18/85 Hogan-Piper (The War to Settle the Score)

11/07/85 Hogan-Piper (The Wrestling Classic)

04/07/86 Hogan-Bundy (Mania - Cage)

03/29/87 Hogan-Andre (Mania)

02/05/88 Hogan-Andre (The Main Event)

03/27/88 Hogan-Andre (Mania)

04/02/89 Hogan-Savage (Mania)

 

Those are the PPV's and the two major TV singles matches. Classic was pretty limited in exposure, and one could debate how major that match was in the storylines at the time. The others seem pretty clear major matches.

 

Two major stadium matches that exist:

 

08/28/86 Hogan-Orndorff (The Big Event)

07/31/88 Hogan-Andre (Wrestlefest 1988 - cage)

 

Hogan-Orndorff was exploding at the time. The card did get some run on WWF TV, though not what it would get if it were today. It's useful to look at as a big match.

 

Hogan-Andre at Wrestlefest was similar: it did get some push on TV, like The Big Event a chunk of it ended up on Prime Time. It's useful to look at as a big match.

 

SNME is a problem.

 

From a storyline standpoint, very few of them meant much though some of them did in the sense of angles coming out of them. An obvious example would be the 02/15/86 Hogan-Muraco. Hogan-Muraco meant nothing, but the post match beatdown of Hogan played into Hogan-Bundy at Mania. There also are a ton of ones like Hogan-Orton, Hogan-Volkoff and Hogan-Funk that really weren't even feuds that had strong storylines going on around the circuit. Those are the first three Hogan singles matches on SNME, and we haven't gotten to Hogan-Sika.

 

Exactly which of the Hogan singles on SNME were Big Matches is really tough. The two Hogan-Orndorff matches? Hogan-Bossman in the cage? Those feuds ran their courses by the time the cage matches aired, though one could argue that they put a fine point on them.

 

So overall, there's a small number of Hogan Big Singles Matches to look at. Probably the nine listed at the top.

 

I've hit very few of them so far. Hogan-Savage at Mania and Hogan-Orndorff at The Big Event. I was saving the Hogan-Andre for the 300th match, then running through the three rematches right after that. Since the last match I did was the 201st, and that was back in June... it could be a while. Though with football season nearly over, I did plan on going back to the thread.

 

I will be interested to see how differently he works the Big Matches than his usual house show match. I don't know if much can be taken out of the four Hogan-Andre matches since that's such a unique opponent.

 

John

[jdw]

I remember you praising the effectiveness of the work in a Pat Patterson v Rikishi match (where people confused praise of effective work for something more). Don't remember praising a Trip one.Perhaps the Patterson match was used as a contrast with a lesser Trip match.

I don't remember Patterson-Rikishi... that was a long time ago. I do remember Frank did the post on the Stinky Face Match involving the Stooges and how smartly it was worked.

 

I recall a Trip-Rikishi world title match right at the peak of Rikishi being over, with the crowd going bonker for it, and it being really smartly worked (even the nonsense of the finish to get over Steph-Trip). I want to say very early 2000, right after Trip won the title back, and probably on SmackDown. They did a rematch at some point on Raw and it wasn't quite the same. Anyway, I recall that a lot of us, especially those who already didn't like Trip, praised that as being a very solid, smart match. Nothing epic since it was probably an 8 minute match, but a good, solid match.

 

John

[Loss]

There's some interesting HHH talk that probably factors into flipping opinions.

 

There was a popular line of thinking everyone would say in 2000, namely that no one thought HHH would be any good as champion and he surprised everyone. But I don't recall any real criticism of him from August-December 1999.

 

In fact, I don't recall much criticism of anything WWF-related during 1999 online at all, as it seems WCW's sharp decline was what people preferred to talk about.

 

What was the WON line on HHH early on?

[Kronos]

This isn't so much a flipped opinion, but I was watching the 2002 Rumble match the other day on justin.tv. I couldn't believe how hard Haitch was working in that match. He and Austin were going a mile a minute, showing as much energy as I recall seeing out of him. It does make me want to go back and re-look at his 02-03 stuff (some of which I have seen, but it's been awhile). I watched the first half of the Nash HIAC match recently, too, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it considering all the crap it gets.

[Johnny Sorrow]

An obvious example would be the 02/15/86 Hogan-Muraco. Hogan-Muraco meant nothing, but the post match beatdown of Hogan played into Hogan-Bundy at Mania.

Here's where House show stuff played into things. Hogan/ Muraco was a HUGE program at MSG. It followed the typical three match formula at MSG, but for those of us on the East Coast who got MSG network and the local promos, Hogan/ Muraco was a major fued. Seriously, local promos for this had Muraco/ Hogan as THE major fued of the year. And then it seemed to us the blow off match was on SNME, where Bundy attacked Hogan. And then Muraco got Orndorff at Mania 2 in a match me and my pals thought was gonna rule and it stunk.

[Strummer]

There's some interesting HHH talk that probably factors into flipping opinions.

 

There was a popular line of thinking everyone would say in 2000, namely that no one thought HHH would be any good as champion and he surprised everyone. But I don't recall any real criticism of him from August-December 1999.

 

In fact, I don't recall much criticism of anything WWF-related during 1999 online at all, as it seems WCW's sharp decline was what people preferred to talk about.

 

What was the WON line on HHH early on?

off the top of my head here

 

the general criticism of WWF in 1999 online were general "too much talking not enough wrestling" points. You're right though there were no specific complaints about individual wrestlers getting pushed or not. Billy Gunn might be the only exception from that year.

 

Scott Keith was the main figure online who was doubting Hunter would be a good champion. The long blonde hair jokes, etc.

 

just from the boards I frequented back then the Oratory was pretty anti-WWF. Some other guys from the Big 3 Newsboard also (I think that's what it was called this is 12 years ago)

[Victator]

The two Hogan/Bundy SNME matches were big matches since they lead into the Andre/Hogan rematch. Bundy won the first match by count out leading to the rematch. I think that is the first time Hogan lost by count out on tv. Obviously not counting arena matches.

 

I love the rematch. With long time Hogan opponents you kinda get these long running themes. With Bundy it feels like he is trying to solve the Hulk Up. Here he goes all out hitting Hogan with everything he has and getting closer than he ever has. But there is no way around the Hulk Up and Bundy loses. Then you get the big Andre angle where he chokes out Hogan and it takes almost the entire locker room to stop him.

[Victator]

Should also mention that I blame Hulk no selling finishers completely on Savage. Before he wrestled Savage Hulk would always narrowly avoid the finisher or the heel took too long to go for the pin. Savage had George Steel kick out of the elbow at Wrestlemania 2 and it became a staple of the Hogan/Savage series.

[Kronos]

Speaking of Mero and HHH:

 

I am watching the HHH dvd set, and Hunter mentions that when people ask him who he learned from in the early days, he says he begrudgingly thanks Mero. "Because Mero taught me that I had to be a ring general."

 

Well no wonder people think less of Mero if HHH has been talking shit about him for 15 years.

[S.L.L.]

I'm struggling to think of a specific instance of me flipping opinions, though I'm 100% certain it's happened a number of times. I guess ECW in general was really appealing to me at the time, but much of it doesn't hold up 15 years later. Although exposure to handhelds has caused me to flip back a little.

 

Actually, Raven specifically is a good example, as he is a guy who's shtick I bought hook, line, and sinker in the mid-90's, but now it all comes off as sad and embarrassing.

[Victator]

I've changed my opinion on specific matches but not much else. Like Vader in the WWF. i judged some matches harshly because he lost but going back I found some hidden gems.

 

The match vs Kane at No Way Out I found to be really good. It had a strong story behind it. kane had seemingly finished off the undertaker at the Royal Rumble and Vader is the only person left strong enough to stop Kane. The match had a good story of Vader being the first person to be able to hurt Kane. At the same time Kane is the first wrestler to ever out monster Vader. He absorbs Vader's offense while still moving forward. I liked Paul Bearer outside on the verge of tears thinking Vader had killed his meal ticket.

 

The post match angle worked with Kane not being satisfied with just winning. So he bashes his head in with a wrench. The image of Vader being stretchered out really solidified Kane as a monster.

 

But at the time I poo pooed it because Vader lost.

[Coffey]

The first name that came to mind was The Undertaker. I always found his unhurtable zombie gimmick silly and he seems so limited that he was downright boring to me. I completely flipped opinions on him during his American Bad Ass phase. He was putting on pretty damn good matches. I remember really liking his ladder match with Jeff Hardy as an example. Now he just has like an incredible match once a year, so I don't hate the zombie so much anymore. His matches with HBK both blew me away.

 

More recently, Dolph Ziggler has turned my opinion of him around quite a great deal because he keeps having really good matches.

[KB8]

What I find is that if I youtube something that I haven't watched a lot of in recent times, it tends to annoy the shit out of me. 90s Joshi is a perfect example. I honestly believe that to enjoy Joshi you have to get into the rhythm of how the workers work (the flow of the match, the way they sell, the saving your partner and breaking up pins, the long finishing stretches, etc.) If you haven't watched it for awhile, it's tough to get back into the swing. The end result (for me anyway) is that I end up hating something I might have tolerated had I watched a whole batch of it.

I'm sort of the same with lucha. Not to that extreme, but if I watch a random lucha match when I've been watching something like 80s WWF or 90s All Japan for the past couple weeks, there's a good chance I'll like it a fair bit less than I would have if I had already been on a lucha kick.

 

If I've already seen the match and I decide to throw it on at random then that's not really a problem, but if it's something new I usually try and fit it in at a time when I've already been watching other lucha.

 

Although I did find a lot of the IWRG stuff from last year to be really easy going no matter what I had been watching before it, so maybe I've turned the corner.

[jdw]

An obvious example would be the 02/15/86 Hogan-Muraco. Hogan-Muraco meant nothing, but the post match beatdown of Hogan played into Hogan-Bundy at Mania.

Here's where House show stuff played into things. Hogan/ Muraco was a HUGE program at MSG. It followed the typical three match formula at MSG, but for those of us on the East Coast who got MSG network and the local promos, Hogan/ Muraco was a major fued. Seriously, local promos for this had Muraco/ Hogan as THE major fued of the year. And then it seemed to us the blow off match was on SNME, where Bundy attacked Hogan. And then Muraco got Orndorff at Mania 2 in a match me and my pals thought was gonna rule and it stunk.

 

When was the last Muraco-Hogan match in MSG? Who was Muraco feuding all around the WWF at the point of the SNME match, and had been for a while (set up by a rather famous SNME angle the prior year).

 

Muraco-Hogan was long over, and blown off in MSG in a cage match. If it ran in other cities, it had long since been blown off. The SNME match wasn't a Big Match. It was recycling an old opponent of Hogan's to use as a base for a Major Angle: Hogan-Bundy.

 

John

[jdw]

The two Hogan/Bundy SNME matches were big matches since they lead into the Andre/Hogan rematch. Bundy won the first match by count out leading to the rematch. I think that is the first time Hogan lost by count out on tv. Obviously not counting arena matches.

 

I love the rematch. With long time Hogan opponents you kinda get these long running themes. With Bundy it feels like he is trying to solve the Hulk Up. Here he goes all out hitting Hogan with everything he has and getting closer than he ever has. But there is no way around the Hulk Up and Bundy loses. Then you get the big Andre angle where he chokes out Hogan and it takes almost the entire locker room to stop him.

Again, they weren't Big Matches. Hogan-Bundy had its big match in 1986. This also was a recycle to have an angle leading to something else, which you point out: Hogan-Andre.

 

I'm not saying they weren't entertaining matches. But they were just SNME matches, and a chance to see Hogan wrestle. It wasn't even playing in the arenas at that point.

 

The two Hogan-Orndorff and the one Bossman-Hogan cage match are about as close as one can get to a Big Match for Hogan on TV. It was a different beast back then as Vince wasn't raking money on SNME, while PPV and Arenas were his business. He was very careful about what he gave away for "free".

 

The Main Event obviously is a different beast: Hogan-Andre was a Big Match.

 

John

[Victator]

They weren't booked like filler matches. Bundy actually got a win over Hogan on tv to set up the January match. It was much bigger than Hogan vs Sika or Hogan vs Race a month later. During the matches Bundy was treated as a full threat to Hogan. That this time he could win. Andre was played up but more he was the final thing that Bundy needed to beat Hogan.

 

He was not treated like cannon fodder. Just pointing that out to compare how good the WWF use to be at this sorta thing and how bad they have been at it since the 90s.

[Bob Morris]

There's some interesting HHH talk that probably factors into flipping opinions.

 

There was a popular line of thinking everyone would say in 2000, namely that no one thought HHH would be any good as champion and he surprised everyone. But I don't recall any real criticism of him from August-December 1999.

 

In fact, I don't recall much criticism of anything WWF-related during 1999 online at all, as it seems WCW's sharp decline was what people preferred to talk about.

 

What was the WON line on HHH early on?

I can't speak much to what the WON line was, but I remember when Keith's Rantsylvania site was just his own site in which he accepted writing from anyone, I wrote about the lack of good heels in the summer of 1999 and mentioned that HHH just wasn't catching on. That pretty much held true until the angle with Stephanie McMahon, at which point HHH finally got over as a top guy.

 

I will say that, had Vince Russo not left when he did, I doubt HHH would ever have gotten over. A big reason why there weren't that many good heels was because the booking didn't help their cause (Undertaker being a big example) or they just didn't click (Jeff Jarrett and Billy Gunn are the two that come to mind). HHH was a combination of the two... once Russo was gone and the booking became better, HHH was able to hone his character in a better direction and, once the Steph angle kicked in, he got over as a top heel.