Matches You Must See Before You Die

[khawk20]

Al two things interest me there:

 

1. I've never seen anyone rate Hogan vs. Iron Sheik that highly. In fact, I've never thought of that match as anything other than a title switch. Can you write a bit more on this, genuinely interested.

One thing that stand out about this match is the absolute fervor that the crowd is in before, during, and after the bout. As intense as anything I've ever seen in North American Wrestling.

 

Hot crowd does not a classic match make, but it can help it make a larger impression than it might make without it, for sure.

[smkelly]

...and it's historic.

[Al]

Yeah, it is historic. For that matter now that I think of it, Bockwinkel/Hogan from Super Sunday may be an important addition to the list as well.

[JerryvonKramer]

Al, by the same rationale then, how come Andre vs. Hogan doesn't make the list?

[Loss]

Well, this is just being tossed around. No one said Hogan/Andre definitely shouldn't make the list.

 

Although ... Hogan/Sheik is a fun, historic five-minute match, and Hogan/Andre is a terrible, actively bad historic match. The match is one of the most famous of all time and the opening staredown, Andre being pelted with trash on his way to the ring, and the bodyslam are iconic images within wrestling. But I'm not sure what about the match screams must-see. You can see everything you need to see by watching the Hulkamania 3 Coliseum video release and a quick video package of the match with the only moments that are really worth anything.

[Al]

Al, by the same rationale then, how come Andre vs. Hogan doesn't make the list?

Hogan/Andre is on my list, actually.

[smkelly]

Andre vs. Hogan is not intended for a workrate pleasurable viewing. Its context is for historical purposes only. Kind of like teaching Shakespeare to high school kids. Not many will enjoy it, same with college, but they understand the importance of it. History is important, man.

[Victator]

Hogan/Andre is a good match.

[Jingus]

Hogan/Andre is a good match.

I don't often say the words "I agree with Victator", but I do here. That particular edition of Hogan/Andre wasn't even close to being their worst match; check out the match at next year's Wrestlemania, for example. The Mania III match did its job just fine, hell I'd say it was a better match than Hogan/Bundy from the year prior. The whole "Hogan/Andre was historically significant, but one of the worst matches ever" talking point has been greatly overstated as the years go by. I'd much rather watch that one than, say, Taker/Sid from Mania XIII.

[anarchistxx]

Andre vs. Hogan is not intended for a workrate pleasurable viewing. Its context is for historical purposes only. Kind of like teaching Shakespeare to high school kids.

What a horrible comparison; Andre/Hogan isn't in the least analogous to Shakespearean literature.

 

Shakespeare, however archaic, is at the very top of his genre both critically and commercially, and has formed at least somewhat of a blueprint for all stage writers since. His works are absolute classics. If you were to make an even tenuous connection to wrestling, it would be perhaps to sixty minute draws from the 70s and 80s, with guys like Flair, that to the connoisseur are exciting and fascinating, but to your average mainstream wrestling fan, conditioned only for today's product, would be beyond dull.

 

Andre/Hogan is something totally different - it's historically important, as established, but it's also a poor match, and one that the contemporary viewer would still not enjoy. It isn't like Shakespeare; hard work, hard to understand but rewarding once given insight. Instead it's easy to watch, easy to understand, but just not very good, especially compared to the standard and style of wrestling in the modern era. It's almost impossible to equate this to historic literature/drama. Something like de Sade's Juliette shares a few similarities in that it's something famous in the genre, absolutely terribly written and a book that you want to have read but don't necessarily enjoy reading. Yet it's an incredibly daring, even groundbreaking work, words which categorically do not apply to Hogan/Andre. As is Looking Backward by Bellamy, similar in that it was the biggest seller of the time but doesn't really hold up today, and was possibly outshone by News From Nowhere (the Steamboat/Savage of the card). That doesn't work either, though; Looking Backward is highly important as a work of utopian fiction, not just as a literary event, in the way that Hogan/Andre just isn't important as a wrestling match rather than as a entertainment event. Even if music, it's hard to find something that was famous, important, commercially huge yet fairly awful.

 

It's all subjective anyway. One thing is for sure; there is absolutely zero connection between the works of Shakespeare and the main event of Wrestlemania III.

[Resident Evil]

From the very first time I ever watched it back in 89 or so to the present I have always enjoyed Hogan vs Andre from WM III over Steamboat vs the Macho Man (which I also enjoy) from WMIII. I love everything about the WMIII match. It was put together very well. Now Steamboat vs Macho from Maple Leaf Gardens I may have enjoyed more than than Hogan vs Andre but I'd have to watch them back to back. I love them both for different reasons.

[Log]

So, anarchistxx, would Hogan/Andre maybe be more like some big Bruckheimer or Bay movie that does very well at the box office, but is really quite bad?

[JerryvonKramer]

Andre/ Hogan comes back to my argument that wrestling is not only about the match and it's a mistake to use it as the only unit of analysis. That match is all about the storytelling before hand, the build, the ripping of the cross, the personalities, the promos, Heenan, etc. etc.

 

You can't take the 11-minute blow off match in the abstract.

[Dylan Waco]

Who has ever argued that wrestling is all about the match?

[JerryvonKramer]

There was a sustained argument a while back that it is mostly about the match. "Wrestling" is the name on the marquee, etc. It's in this thread somewhere, around pages 3-4.

[Dylan Waco]

I could be misunderstanding people's points but I don't think the argument was that it was "mostly about the match" per se. Just rather that wrestling matches are the defining trait that separates wrestling from other forms of performance art/entertainment.

[anarchistxx]

So, anarchistxx, would Hogan/Andre maybe be more like some big Bruckheimer or Bay movie that does very well at the box office, but is really quite bad?

Yeah, I guess. It has to have had a huge build to it, but be more about the spectacle than the content. More people remember Andre/Hogan I suspect than some of the perhaps technically superior matches on that card or around the time period, which is similar to more people remembering a big famous blockbuster than some cult classic French film that film enthusiasts think is the greatest thing ever shot. And even if they saw the French film, they probably wouldn't like it, as they're looking for easy escapism rather than more specific qualities as to what makes a great film. Clearly, the greatest films are the ones who are able to convey a compelling, memorable film whilst also containing the little elements in the acting and the pictures that more serious film watchers enjoy; just as the best wrestling matches of all time should be driving the live crowd and TV audience crazy as well as sucking in the smarks (is that still a useable phrase?).

 

Andre/ Hogan comes back to my argument that wrestling is not only about the match and it's a mistake to use it as the only unit of analysis. That match is all about the storytelling before hand, the build, the ripping of the cross, the personalities, the promos, Heenan, etc. etc.

 

You can't take the 11-minute blow off match in the abstract.

Who uses the match as the only unit of analyses? For a start, for anyone to actually care about the match itself there has to be some kind of emotional attachment with what is happening and the characters involved, which comes from the build, the booking/scripting and the personalities. This is the reason that when my mate put on an episode of Raw from early 2000 he'd downloaded recently I watched it and enjoyed it immensely; the in ring action was reasonable at best, but the fun part was watching all these unique characters that era provided that I myself had an emotional investment in at the time as a youngster. A day later, I thought I'd re-pique my interest in wrestling by watching Dream Rush that was randomly lying around waiting to be thrown out, and it wasn't nearly the same as I haven't been familiar with most of the undercard wrestlers and even for Nakano/Kong and the famous main event tag I had to remind myself the story behind the whole thing. Dream Rush is a fucking awesome event by all accounts, much better than some random WWF TV episode from the early 00s, which solidifies the point that even the best match is worthless without anything to care about or any reason.

 

That's not to say Hogan/Andre is good though - it fulfills some criterion but fails on others (mainly, it's a slow, sloppy, terrible looking match). The reason it's even halfway watchable is the redeeming factors of the heat, the build and the two guys involved. An example of a far better version of this is the Matsomuto v Nagayo hair match from AJW in 1985. Two stars with massive crossover mainstream appeal wrestling a grudge match with something important on the line, in front of a huge, red hot crowd after a fantastic build. The difference in in ring quality between the two is phenomenal. It's possible to have a build like Hogan/Andre and a payoff that isn't sloppy and based on a spectacle.

 

Essentially, a top match should contain all of the important elements, such as Rock/Austin at Wrestlemania 17 with the most iconic characters ever and a wonderfully built feud; or the 06/09/95 AJ tag, with all its various elements and the respective journeys the characters had been on over the past five years; or even the 2009 KENTA/Nakajima match, which I fucking loved even though it was the first match I'd seen in two years. Why? I cared about the characters and the dynamics, I dug the build up and bought them as top stars, and they worked a great story of a war of attrition that had been emotionally involved.

 

Hogan/Andre contains some elements of a great feud/match, and as such it's rightly remembered more than some technically fantastic Benoit/Finlay match or indie flip-fest. It is, however, nowhere near being a great match, even if it's vaguely essential viewing for the blossoming wrestling fan.

 

But as Dylan says, this should barely need an explanation, of course wrestling is about more than the match itself.

[Loss]

Andre vs. Hogan is not intended for a workrate pleasurable viewing. Its context is for historical purposes only. Kind of like teaching Shakespeare to high school kids. Not many will enjoy it, same with college, but they understand the importance of it. History is important, man.

I think you can understand the importance of the match without ever seeing it.

[Loss]

Andre/ Hogan comes back to my argument that wrestling is not only about the match and it's a mistake to use it as the only unit of analysis. That match is all about the storytelling before hand, the build, the ripping of the cross, the personalities, the promos, Heenan, etc. etc.

 

You can't take the 11-minute blow off match in the abstract.

Lots of things in lots of genres are "important" but not "good". Wrestling isn't unique in that regard. I just don't think seeing Hogan/Andre is a "must before you die" for a wrestling fan. There's nothing you can learn from seeing it that you couldn't get from a well-produced video package, or even a well written description of it.

 

This is a thread about must SEE matches.

 

The reason the match is actively bad to me is the attempted piledriver on the floor and Andre backflipping Hogan, and Hogan not even making contact with the floor, but selling it like he did anyway. It was a first day of wrestling school-level bump. It's a spectacle. I like spectacles. Sometimes, spectacles aren't necessarily good.

 

Hogan/Andre is worth watching, but I don't think it's at the level of a must-see match. There are plenty of matches I like that I wouldn't nominate for this list.

[Al]

Lots of things in lots of genres are "important" but not "good". Wrestling isn't unique in that regard. I just don't think seeing Hogan/Andre is a "must before you die" for a wrestling fan. There's nothing you can learn from seeing it that you couldn't get from a well-produced video package, or even a well written description of it.

Probably semantics here, but I don't think "you can see a video package or magazine article" can be a reason for disqualifying a match. Particularly highlights. The match existed to create those highlights. That a match was just a great atmosphere, I could see that argument. But without atmosphere, Matsumoto/Nagayo becomes somethings that's simply maybe a little too disturbing to watch. It's important.

[Matt D]

For what it's worth, Andre/Hogan is a fairly smartly laid out match. Andre may have been hurting but his timing and body language was frigging amazing in his late run. (But then I'm the guy who thinks that Warrior/Andre SNME is a great match too).

[Resident Evil]

For what it's worth, Andre/Hogan is a fairly smartly laid out match. Andre may have been hurting but his timing and body language was frigging amazing in his late run. (But then I'm the guy who thinks that Warrior/Andre SNME is a great match too).

Exactly, Andre vs Hogan is a smartly laid out match. I have easily watched this over 10 times and every time it compels me just not because of me knowing the stars in the match but in how everyhing is worked. Everything means A LOT and things are done at the right time. Andre even when he was hurt was awesome to watch. We don't agree with the Hart Foundation vs Demos(Slam 90 classic destroys the strong Slam 89 match) but I agree with everything here. Warrior vs Andre from SNME ruled too. I actually went back to rewatch it last month but got distracted by the match where Warrior slams Andre at MSG and Andre does not like it!! I enjoyed that too. I couldn't find the match where Andre pinned the Warrior though. I knew it was on youtube at one point.

 

Speaking of strong Andre match there is one I really enjoyed against the Macho Man but I can't remember the date now.

 

Getting off topic a little, That reminds me Macho had a really strong match against Warrior on one of the arena shows. There are at least a couple of these circulating around with one being better than the other. I remember it was better than Summerslam.

 

Also, besides the WWF advertising for house shows people never knew how often the WWF toured and how much they wrestled. House shows never made news but the Warrior vs Andre series where Warrior was beating him in 30 seconds made news. It was the only time I ever remembered the media picking up a story about WWF house shows. People were really talking about that at the time. It felt like one of those legendary wrestling "myths".

[Bob Morris]

One of the spots that really got the crowd popping in Hogan/Andre is when Hogan comes off the ropes and knocks Andre off his feet for the first time in the match. Yet in everything I've watched of highlights shown when the match is discussed, I've never seen that spot featured.

 

Yet I think that spot is just as important when getting the context of the match. First came the moment when Hogan knocked Andre off his feet, and that's when he got his second wind and now figured the time was right to try the slam again.

 

So... I agree with those who have said that watching the match itself is necessary to understand the context of the memorable spots. First, Hogan gets Andre off his feet, which seldom happened. Then, Hogan slams Andre, which also seldom happened, and had already been teased earlier in the match and led to Andre nearly winning the match.

[goodhelmet]

Damn, if you are going to watch a 12 minute Andre match then watch Andre vs. Hansen.

 

If you are going to watch a Hogan spectacle, watch Hogan vs. Rock.

 

Anyway, since wrestling is so compartmentalized, i would love to hear opinions on the following...

 

Must see cage match

Must see high flyers match (if anyone says Tiger Mask vs. Dynamite Kid, I am banning you. You have been warned. I am not bringing that played out discussion here)

Must see match with blood

Must see mat work

Must see gimmick match

Must see world title bout

Must see 1970s match

Must see 1980s match

Must see 1990s match

Must see tag match

 

I know it would be real easy to just put "see above" on some of these, but if a match defines the cage, try to find another match to define the 80s even if your first inclination is to just have Tully vs. Magnum cover both.

[Log]

There are other factors with Hogan/Andre that need to be taken into account. Andre was up to nearly 800 pounds at this point. Hogan wasn't sure if Andre was going to shoot on him and take the belt, so he was on the defensive the whole match. Then, when Hogan finally pulled off the body slam, he tore every muscle in his back. He was able to suck it up and continue, though, and finish the match with the big leg drop. The match also has a mystique about it because Andre died a week later due to complications from the slam. I think when you take all that into account, it makes for a more compelling watch.