Tony Schiavone and early 90s WCW announcing

[Loss]

One thing I never got about Meltzer and co ragging on the WWF product of that period for how much they apparently did wrong, is the fact that they seem totally oblivious to the fact that ...

 

This group of people created the most over product of all time.

 

If Gorilla buried people so much just to get himself over, why was practically the entire roster from Hogan to Brian B. Blair and and Dangerous Danny Davis over like rover?

 

Someone somewhere was doing something right, right?

 

Are the Gorilla detractors going to argue that everything was crazy over DESPITE Monsoon?

 

I'm not saying you should like him if you don't, but I think saying he's downright awful or the "worst" appears to fly in the face of the evidence.

 

I can't think of another promotion or period in which the entire card was over in that way and Gorilla was the main play-by-play guy at that time. So he has to take some credit for that.

Gorilla gave Bret Hart the "Excellence of Execution" moniker. I give him credit for that, and I think it played a small role in getting Bret over. If you're going to say it's wrong, it's on you to point to wrestlers who would have not be as over as they were if not for how Gorilla put them over on commentary. Are you really saying Hogan, Andre, Piper, Savage, Rude, Perfect, Heenan, DiBiase or anyone else may not have hit the level they did without Gorilla making them look good at the booth?

 

I can point to Jim Ross doing things to get guys like Lex Luger over in a way they may not have gotten over otherwise.

 

The WWF did a lot of things right in the 80s -- freezing competition out of big buildings, raiding talent from the territories, pushing an invincible top babyface, immaculate television production and probably more.

 

Great booking, great matches, great announcing and delivering an entertaining presentation that withstands the test of time are not among the things they did do well. Not that they were trying to do those things, so that's not even really a huge criticism. Just pointing out that defending them on those principles is a waste of time.

[Loss]

One thing I never got about Meltzer and co ragging on the WWF product of that period for how much they apparently did wrong, is the fact that they seem totally oblivious to the fact that ...

 

This group of people created the most over product of all time.

 

If Gorilla buried people so much just to get himself over, why was practically the entire roster from Hogan to Brian B. Blair and and Dangerous Danny Davis over like rover?

 

Someone somewhere was doing something right, right?

 

Are the Gorilla detractors going to argue that everything was crazy over DESPITE Monsoon?

 

I'm not saying you should like him if you don't, but I think saying he's downright awful or the "worst" appears to fly in the face of the evidence.

 

I can't think of another promotion or period in which the entire card was over in that way and Gorilla was the main play-by-play guy at that time. So he has to take some credit for that.

Gorilla gave Bret Hart the "Excellence of Execution" moniker. I give him credit for that, and I think it played a small role in getting Bret over. If you're going to say it's wrong, it's on you to point to wrestlers who would have not be as over as they were if not for how Gorilla put them over on commentary. Are you really saying Hogan, Andre, Piper, Savage, Rude, Perfect, Heenan, DiBiase or anyone else may not have hit the level they did without Gorilla making them look good at the booth?

 

I can point to Jim Ross doing things to get guys like Lex Luger over in a way they may not have gotten over otherwise.

 

The WWF did a lot of things right in the 80s -- freezing competition out of big buildings, raiding talent from the territories, pushing an invincible top babyface, immaculate television production, great promotion and hype of their big events and probably more.

 

Great booking, great matches, great announcing and delivering an entertaining presentation that withstands the test of time are not among the things they did do well. Not that they were trying to do those things, so that's not even really a huge criticism. Just pointing out that defending them on those principles is a waste of time.

[artDDP]

Nash won me over when he asked why Ric Flair always wears his kneepads below his knees.

I loved this. This was also the same live Thunder where he was asked why someone was wrestling the other and he replied, "Because half the roster no-showed and we had to book this half an hour before air."

[JerryvonKramer]

One thing I never got about Meltzer and co ragging on the WWF product of that period for how much they apparently did wrong, is the fact that they seem totally oblivious to the fact that ...

 

This group of people created the most over product of all time.

 

If Gorilla buried people so much just to get himself over, why was practically the entire roster from Hogan to Brian B. Blair and and Dangerous Danny Davis over like rover?

 

Someone somewhere was doing something right, right?

 

Are the Gorilla detractors going to argue that everything was crazy over DESPITE Monsoon?

 

I'm not saying you should like him if you don't, but I think saying he's downright awful or the "worst" appears to fly in the face of the evidence.

 

I can't think of another promotion or period in which the entire card was over in that way and Gorilla was the main play-by-play guy at that time. So he has to take some credit for that.

Gorilla gave Bret Hart the "Excellence of Execution" moniker. I give him credit for that, and I think it played a small role in getting Bret over. If you're going to say it's wrong, it's on you to point to wrestlers who would have not be as over as they were if not for how Gorilla put them over on commentary. Are you really saying Hogan, Andre, Piper, Savage, Rude, Perfect, Heenan, DiBiase or anyone else may not have hit the level they did without Gorilla making them look good at the booth?

 

I can point to Jim Ross doing things to get guys like Lex Luger over in a way they may not have gotten over otherwise.

 

The WWF did a lot of things right in the 80s -- freezing competition out of big buildings, raiding talent from the territories, pushing an invincible top babyface, immaculate television production, great promotion and hype of their big events and probably more.

 

Great booking, great matches, great announcing and delivering an entertaining presentation that withstands the test of time are not among the things they did do well. Not that they were trying to do those things, so that's not even really a huge criticism. Just pointing out that defending them on those principles is a waste of time.

 

I can understand the criticism of matches, but in terms of the presentation, commentary and booking I don't understand where you are coming from here.

 

If you just take Hogan, for example, from 86 to 88, the booking is incredible. The way the feuds segue into each other, Hogan/ Orndorff to Hogan/ Andre to Hogan/ DiBiase, the attempt to buy the title, the evil twin refs, the WM4 tourney to Megabucks vs. Megapowers to the slow-tease on the Megapowers exploding and the big payoff at WM5.

 

What's that? 4 years' worth of very-well-paced, very-well-booked angles with great continuity and the emotional triggers pulled in the right places.

 

What did they do WRONG there?

 

I don't necessarily want to come across as 80 WWF mark no. 1, but I don't think they get the credit they deserve from a lot of you.

 

In terms of the presentation, what's wrong with Mean Gene? Or Sean Mooney sitting in a broadcast studio giving us "breaking news"?

 

What's wrong with slow-building feuds and keeping top talent separated apart from the really big shows?

 

I'll maintain that WWF booking from 86 till around the Slaughter thing in 1991 wasn't just good, it was sensational. And if you ignore Slaughter, and look instead for example at the Savage retirement >> wedding >> Jake/ Undertaker angle and the big pay-off with Jake at This Tuesday in Texas >> Savage / Flair, or look at the way something like DiBiase vs. Virgil was booked and you can easily make an argument that the great booking stretched well into 1992.

 

Seems like they did everything right to me. I can't think of any company that had such consistently awesome booking for a sustained period like that.

[Cox]

I'm sorry, but Roddy Piper gets permanent announcer immunity from me for his call of the first Saba Simba match.

 

"THAT'S TONY ATLAS!"

[Bix]

I'd love to know more about the Saba Simba debut and why they didn't re-record the commentary. Was it just a really weird way of establishing the "discovering his roots" aspect of the gimmick?

[Bob Morris]

In response to what Jerry wrote...

 

I can understand the criticism of matches, but in terms of the presentation, commentary and booking I don't understand where you are coming from here.

I don't want to speak for Loss, but I will say this: Knowing whether something withstands the test of time — which is what Loss' point is — is based on actually going back to look at it rather than reliving memories.

 

Not that I'm saying you are doing that, Jerry, but when people are pointing out specific stuff that didn't work, they go back to look at it and point out those specifics. When they do that, the best counterpoint is to look at specifics in which the wrestler, commentator or whoever in question did his job well.

 

If you just take Hogan, for example, from 86 to 88, the booking is incredible. The way the feuds segue into each other, Hogan/ Orndorff to Hogan/ Andre to Hogan/ DiBiase, the attempt to buy the title, the evil twin refs, the WM4 tourney to Megabucks vs. Megapowers to the slow-tease on the Megapowers exploding and the big payoff at WM5.

 

What's that? 4 years' worth of very-well-paced, very-well-booked angles with great continuity and the emotional triggers pulled in the right places.

 

What did they do WRONG there?

While I know it's not part of your example, that got followed with Hogan/Zeus with Beefcake and Savage in tow.

 

But the issue is not just how well those feuds segued into one another, but what happened along the way. WM IV was a mediocre-at-best PPV overall. SummerSlam 88 doesn't age well as an overall show despite the main event and how it continues the saga you mentioned. Survivor Series 88 hasn't held up well, despite a good opener (and when you go back and watch the show live, the Demolition/Powers of Pain double turn didn't click with the fans, so that's one problem with booking right there). And while the 1989 Royal Rumble did help move the Hogan/Savage storyline along, the attempt to get Big John Studd re-establised as a top babyface didn't work over the long haul, even if they had the right idea with it coming down to Studd and DiBiase at the end (to put this into perspective, ask yourself how fans might have reacted to Studd if he had been the one to come out next when Hogan was fighting the Twin Towers outside the ring following Hogan's elimination).

 

Anyway, to the point... there are certainly a few good things you can pinpoint during that time period you mentioned, but as an overall package, there really isn't enough in the way of memorable matches or booking. It's a product with a few good spots, but is lacking in many areas.

 

I don't necessarily want to come across as 80 WWF mark no. 1, but I don't think they get the credit they deserve from a lot of you.

WWF certainly deserves credit for showing people how you establish yourself as a national promotion. Vince deserves credit for being smart enough to know how to get WWF on that path and for really capitalizing on Hogan's popularity. Hogan deserves credit for working smart matches in his prime that kept the fans drawn into the action.

 

But just because WWF was successful overall in terms of its promotion doesn't mean everything holds up over time and under further scrutiny. It's just when you are doing strong business, the things you aren't doing so well may not be noticed at first, but when you go back to look at them, they become more apparent and get pointed out by those who go back to look.

 

In terms of the presentation, what's wrong with Mean Gene? Or Sean Mooney sitting in a broadcast studio giving us "breaking news"?

In terms of presentation, there is definitely something wrong with pumping in crowd noise that makes it look like everyone is reacting the same way, at the same level, to every wrestler on the card, regardless of position on the card or feud currently involved with. That has nothing to do with Mooney or Mean Gene.

 

And to address those two specifically, I thought Mooney was generally fine, he just happened to get stuck with Lord Alfred Hayes nearly every time he did match commentary. Mean Gene was somebody I never had an issue with and I don't think Loss does, either (although I could be wrong). But there's more to presentation than just Gene doing interviews and Mooney running the "control center."

 

What's wrong with slow-building feuds and keeping top talent separated apart from the really big shows?

That is not the issue Loss is bringing up. He's bringing up that their execution of building feuds and keeping top talent separated didn't always work well. In other words, right idea, but faulty execution.

 

I'll maintain that WWF booking from 86 till around the Slaughter thing in 1991 wasn't just good, it was sensational. And if you ignore Slaughter, and look instead for example at the Savage retirement >> wedding >> Jake/ Undertaker angle and the big pay-off with Jake at This Tuesday in Texas >> Savage / Flair, or look at the way something like DiBiase vs. Virgil was booked and you can easily make an argument that the great booking stretched well into 1992.

I already mentioned Hogan/Zeus. That was BAD. If Savage hadn't been part of the feud, it would have bombed. Few fans, if any, were buying the Zeus angle.

 

Warrior as WWF champion did not work. It didn't help that the only feuding partner they had available at first was Rick Rude, who wasn't that far removed from his previous feud with Warrior and, despite WWF's best attempt to make him a serious challenger, not enough fans bought into the feud. Warrior/Savage worked better, but Warrior's run at the top was running out of steam and it was only a question of when, not if, Hogan was getting the title back.

 

If you want to get into the IC title, after Savage/Steamboat and Savage/Honky, not much stands out as truly memorable. Warrior/Rude is the only IC title feud in the mid-1998 to mid-1992 that might be considered memorable, and that's mostly because (1) Warrior lost the belt to Rude at WM V, which I don't think many fans expected, and (2) they had a very good match at SummerSlam 89.

 

But remember this: The feud started over Rude getting upset that he lost a posedown with Warrior. That absolutely pales in comparison to how the Savage/Steamboat feud got started.

 

Seems like they did everything right to me. I can't think of any company that had such consistently awesome booking for a sustained period like that.

With all due respect, the WWF did not do everything right. Overall, WWF made a lot of money during that period, so it would be incorrect to say the company wasn't successful. But that doesn't automatically translate into every single thing being done right.

[Mad Dog]

I've watched a lot of 80s wrestling television the last 5 years or so. For being the most popular promotion, the WWF had by far the worst television to sit through in my opinion. The squashes were slow and plodding, they dubbed interviews in with all of the matches and the wrestlers tended to cut generic promos rather than do interviews. WWF television also used to be more predictable and seemed to just lack energy. I've found Crockett, WCCW, Memphis, Georgia and Mid-South/UWF all to have far superior television in almost every aspect but production values. The only shows that were completely worse to me than WWF were Florida and the AWA.

[Sean Liska]

While I know it's not part of your example, that got followed with Hogan/Zeus with Beefcake and Savage in tow.

I think you're underselling the effectiveness of the Zeus angle. SummerSlam 89 did a big buyrate. They did a great job building him up as a monster.

 

80s WWF can be brutal to watch from an in-ring perspective , but I don't know how anyone can knock the booking. It was excellent, as effective as any company has ever been. Look at a show like Mania 3, the whole card is stacked with hot programs that people were into. The year-long Hogan-Savage angle is an obvious classic. How about all of the great angles leading into the first Mania, like Piper knocking out Albano and getting physical with Lauper? Or the Slaughter-Shiek and Snuka-Piper feuds from that era. Don't forget Hogan-Orndorff. Even Hogan-Earthquake was well done and did a big buyrate. How many companies have had that many successes during a run? The Saturday Night Main Event shows were tremendously written programs in terms of getting over characters and issues.

[El-P]

Look at a show like Mania 3, the whole card is stacked with hot programs that people were into.

Can-Am Connection vs Bob Orton & Don Muraco : filler

Billy Jack Haynes vs Hercules : hot feud, really ?

Hillbilly Jim & two midget vs King Kong GBundy & two midget : filler with midgets

Harley Race vs Junkyard Dog : hot feud, really ?

Dream Team vs Rougeau Brothers : filler to the point even the announcer don't pay attention to the match

Roddy Piper vs Adrian Adonis : hot feud

Hart Foundation & Danny Davis vs British Bulldogs & Tito Santana : semi hot feud, the focus was clearly on Santana vs Davis which kinda suck for the tag belts

Butch Reed vs Koko B. Ware : filler

Ricky Steamboat vs Randy Savage : hot feud

Honky Tonk Man vs Jake Roberts : hot feud

Iron Sheik & Nikolai Volkoff vs Killer Bees : filler

Hulk Hogan vs Andre : hot feud

 

That's 40% of hot feuds and 60% of fillers.

[Dooley]

Billy Jack Haynes vs Hercules : hot feud, really ?

Yup. The full-nelson challenge, with Herc bloodying Haynes with the chains set it up well. They also built it well during the climax of the March 87 SNME battle royal, which drew a record amount of eyeballs for the Hogan-Andre confrontation.

 

Harley Race vs Junkyard Dog : hot feud, really ?

JYD was still really over at the time and it was Race's first major program in the WWF. I was at the MLG house show in Feb 87 leading up to WM3 and remember that people were loving it. I think it qualifies.

 

Hart Foundation & Danny Davis vs British Bulldogs & Tito Santana : semi hot feud, the focus was clearly on Santana vs Davis which kinda suck for the tag belts

Davis may have been the most over heel in the company behind Savage and Andre at this point. All 3 babyfaces had a reason to want to kill him while he got to play cowardly heel behind the Harts. Just because the tag titles weren't on the line doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of heat there.

 

Warrior as WWF champion did not work. It didn't help that the only feuding partner they had available at first was Rick Rude, who wasn't that far removed from his previous feud with Warrior and, despite WWF's best attempt to make him a serious challenger, not enough fans bought into the feud. Warrior/Savage worked better, but Warrior's run at the top was running out of steam and it was only a question of when, not if, Hogan was getting the title back.

Warrior's title reign was terribly mismanaged. His first major title defense was against Haku of all people, and was buried at the end of a SNME that was headlined by Hogan-Hennig. That segued into the feud with Rude, which was flat because as you mentioned Warrior had just beaten Rude. That wasn't the only problem though. On the SNME leading into Summerslam, Warrior hit his finish and had Rude beat before being distracted by Heenan and chasing him out of the ring. Warrior still managed to win the match by countout, having laid out both Rude and Heenan. How in the hell is that going to make anyone want to pay for a rematch? After that, the proposed feud with Quake was nixed and Warrior was just kind of in neutral until Savage.

 

With his first challenger being someone he just feuded with and beat, and having two major programs nixed (Quake and Hogan), it's amazing he did as well as he did.

[Sean Liska]

Look at a show like Mania 3, the whole card is stacked with hot programs that people were into.

Can-Am Connection vs Bob Orton & Don Muraco : filler

Billy Jack Haynes vs Hercules : hot feud, really ?

Hillbilly Jim & two midget vs King Kong GBundy & two midget : filler with midgets

Harley Race vs Junkyard Dog : hot feud, really ?

Dream Team vs Rougeau Brothers : filler to the point even the announcer don't pay attention to the match

Roddy Piper vs Adrian Adonis : hot feud

Hart Foundation & Danny Davis vs British Bulldogs & Tito Santana : semi hot feud, the focus was clearly on Santana vs Davis which kinda suck for the tag belts

Butch Reed vs Koko B. Ware : filler

Ricky Steamboat vs Randy Savage : hot feud

Honky Tonk Man vs Jake Roberts : hot feud

Iron Sheik & Nikolai Volkoff vs Killer Bees : filler

Hulk Hogan vs Andre : hot feud

 

That's 40% of hot feuds and 60% of fillers.

 

You caught me exaggerating, but still: The main event is one of the biggest matches ever. The IC title match had a classic six month build. The Piper-Adonis feud also had several entertaining months of angles. Danny Davis was hot as a heel and that was a fun angle. The Honky-Jake match had a memorable angle behind it. How many wrestling shows have peaked so many programs that were over like that Mania did? It goes back to my point of WWF having great booking back then.

[Loss]

I can understand the criticism of matches, but in terms of the presentation, commentary and booking I don't understand where you are coming from here.

Presentation - I am generally a fan of the WWF presentation. I would rather watch 80s WWF than modern WWE if that is any consolation. But there were many groups running at the time who I thought put on a better TV show with more week-to-week continuity instead of running one angle every month or so. In general, most matches not involving Hogan felt like they had the exact same heat (polite and not much more).

 

Commentary - We've discussed it. I'm not sure what else I can add.

 

Booking - Not terrible. Again, the WWF booking during the 80s was much better than modern WWE. But really, it was pretty uneventful. I didn't like that all the feuds existed in their own universe and rarely overlapped (which was one of my favorite things about JCP). I didn't like that tag teams couldn't headline and were treated like a division. I didn't like that they left so many matches on the table, in that they may have happened once at a house show or something, but never had an extended program: Hogan/Jake, Savage/Perfect, Hogan/Rude, Savage/Rude, Savage/Piper. I didn't like they way they re-educated fans to think that only overly muscular guys were any good.

 

If you just take Hogan, for example, from 86 to 88, the booking is incredible. The way the feuds segue into each other, Hogan/ Orndorff to Hogan/ Andre to Hogan/ DiBiase, the attempt to buy the title, the evil twin refs, the WM4 tourney to Megabucks vs. Megapowers to the slow-tease on the Megapowers exploding and the big payoff at WM5.

The WWF did an excellent job putting together Hogan's programs. But even as a kid, I didn't like him all that much because I felt like he got away with too much and came off like an asshole at times in his angles. Paul Orndorff just wanted a phone call. Randy Savage just wanted you to stop putting the moves on his woman. Sid Justice eliminated you fair and square from the Royal Rumble -- take your loss like a man and accept it.

 

What's that? 4 years' worth of very-well-paced, very-well-booked angles with great continuity and the emotional triggers pulled in the right places.

Agreed. The IC title picture was also really fun at times. Not many times where they had really strong top-to-bottom lineups.

 

In terms of the presentation, what's wrong with Mean Gene? Or Sean Mooney sitting in a broadcast studio giving us "breaking news"?

Gene Okerlund was generally great at what he did, but I didn't really care for what he did. Announcers as characters in the show was never something I was a big fan of. The whole Craig DeGeorge/Sean Mooney/Todd Pettengill/Michael Cole lineage has always been one of the things people like the least about the company.

 

What's wrong with slow-building feuds and keeping top talent separated apart from the really big shows?

Nothing. What's wrong with matching up guys on syndication that you have no desire to ever put in long programs, but would still be interesting pairings?

 

I'll maintain that WWF booking from 86 till around the Slaughter thing in 1991 wasn't just good, it was sensational. And if you ignore Slaughter, and look instead for example at the Savage retirement >> wedding >> Jake/ Undertaker angle and the big pay-off with Jake at This Tuesday in Texas >> Savage / Flair, or look at the way something like DiBiase vs. Virgil was booked and you can easily make an argument that the great booking stretched well into 1992.

The WWF had hot periods for sure. I don't think you'd find many people who considered that time abysmal. I just think my thought to most huge 80s WWF fans was always, and I'll say this as nicely as I can -- JESUS, THE NWA IS RIGHT THERE. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A CHANCE? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THE WWF IS BETTER? I admit I have a bit of bias against mega 80s WWF fans, and it typically comes from not giving other promotions a chance.

 

Seems like they did everything right to me. I can't think of any company that had such consistently awesome booking for a sustained period like that.

Nor can I. From a promotion and business standpoint, Vince is untouchable. From a quality standpoint, not so much. Watts was unable to adapt to the way wrestling was changing, for example, but Mid South TV at its best was better booked, more exciting and way more fun to watch than anything the WWF has ever done.

[El-P]

WWF killed the territories and WCW as far as production went. As far as wrestling goes, not so much... quite the opposite.

[jdw]

This is my kind of goofy:

 

 

Don is clearly one of Kal's favorites and he digs interviewing him. Don has a great buzz going on, and is having a hell of a good time.

 

John

I clicked this not expecting to see what I saw. I thought it might be kind of goofy but this is full-on infatuation! I laughed so hard about thirty seconds in. It really did look like Kal was going in for a kiss!

 

That's what's so awesome about it. And Kal in the announcing booth has that level of bizzaro enthusiasm for what's going on in the ring. It really is damn near like he turns off his "this is a work" brain.

 

John

[jdw]

Different strokes for different folks on Monsoon. He was a marketed character like everything else in the WWF, and the presentation wouldn't have worked as well with a straight commentator like a Solie or Russell. Monsoon as the host and voice and character and comedy straight man was more important than the technical details of his commentary.

I'd buy into this theory of not for the fact that Gorilla was exactly the same way *before* the WWF even got into the concept of "marketing characters". He was the same full of crap asshole prick before hosting Primetime and getting paired with heels like Brain.

 

 

I always thought the stuff some people complain about with him were part of his charm. He was like the grandfather who's gotten a little goofy. Plus he did a lot to get the characters and stories over, whether selling someone like Mike Rotundo or Bret Hart as a great technician, or Dino Bravo as a dangerous strongman, he was really good at that stuff. Pointing out little things in matches that the average person wouldn't even notice is just nitpicking.

It's a bit like saying "Megan Fox can't act" is nitpicking because the average person thinks:

 

"Tits tits tits tits tits."

 

I think a lot of us who don't like Monsoon only point out a few things because we've got a lot of other things to talk about when reviewing/recapping/rambling about a match rather than spend the entire thing on Monsoon.

 

"It's a 20 minute match and you only found one thing Monsoon did wrong? Nitpicker!!!"

 

No... I wanted to talk about the _match_. Gorilla was annoying through most of it, and I wanted to make my point on his shittiness by one rather ripe example.

 

Going back to Megan Fox: if you're reviewing Transformers 2 and among the various things mediocre about it you toss out that Megan can't act and reference one scene or example where she blows, is that just nitpicking? Or do several paragraphs of the review need to be devoted to supporting her mediocrity?

 

John

[jdw]

One thing I never got about Meltzer and co ragging on the WWF product of that period for how much they apparently did wrong, is the fact that they seem totally oblivious to the fact that ...

 

This group of people created the most over product of all time.

 

If Gorilla buried people so much just to get himself over, why was practically the entire roster from Hogan to Brian B. Blair and and Dangerous Danny Davis over like rover?

 

Someone somewhere was doing something right, right?

Well, Hogan got over in the WWF back when Vince was the lead announcer. Then he got over in AWA when there was no Gorilla. And he got over in Japan where there was no Gorilla. Then he got over in WCW where there was no Gorilla.

 

Is it not possible that Hogan was able to without Gorilla?

 

 

Are the Gorilla detractors going to argue that everything was crazy over DESPITE Monsoon?

Are Gorilla Fans going to argue that Hogan, Savage, the Warrior and Co. got over ONLY BECAUSE OF Monsoon?

 

 

I'm not saying you should like him if you don't, but I think saying he's downright awful or the "worst" appears to fly in the face of the evidence.

You've offered no "evidence".

 

Baseball Product has gotten over at one time or another in about 30 cities in this country, not even counting the minors.

 

Do all of those teams have Vince Scully?

 

Ernie Harwell? Jack Buck?

 

Guys at that level?

 

Have not some of those teams had shitty pbp men and shitty color men, and still gotten over?

 

 

I can't think of another promotion or period in which the entire card was over in that way and Gorilla was the main play-by-play guy at that time. So he has to take some credit for that.

The main PBP man was Vince. He called the primary syndication show (Super Stars) and called SNME. The reason he didn't call the PPVs was so that he could work the live backstage and make sure the live show went off to his liking.

 

Gorilla did MSG and other house shows because the company could afford to send him around while Vince ran the shit. Frankly, MSG and the other house show broadcasts didn't do as much to get the product "over" compared to syndication and SNME: the majority of WWF Fans around the country didn't see those house show broadcasts in the 80s.

 

Even stuff like Primetime in the 80s was relatively small in the expansion: cable was growing throughout the decade, but syndication and SNME were available in vastly more homes. Cable penetration was only 56% in 1989, and that was after growing over the prior half decade.

 

John

[Sean Liska]

The WWF had hot periods for sure. I don't think you'd find many people who considered that time abysmal. I just think my thought to most huge 80s WWF fans was always, and I'll say this as nicely as I can -- JESUS, THE NWA IS RIGHT THERE. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A CHANCE? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THE WWF IS BETTER? I admit I have a bit of bias against mega 80s WWF fans, and it typically comes from not giving other promotions a chance.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm a big WWF 80s guy. I was a Crockett fan back then, and I'd much rather watch old episodes of Worldwide, Mid-South, or Memphis. It's just that when it comes to sheer effectiveness of booking, I don't know that Vince and Patterson have been topped very often.

[Victator]

I love the WWF and the NWA. I probably love the NWA more since I remember it more vividly. But its cool how there were so many distinct wrestling companies around back then.

[El-P]

But its cool how there were so many distinct wrestling companies around back then.

You don't say. I'm glad it's out there for me to watch now.

[ohtani's jacket]

Piper was awesome on commentary when Virgil won the Million Dollar belt. The best heel commentator among active wrestlers was definitely Owen. Never heard anyone in WWF or NWA/WCW who compared.

[Dooley]

JESUS, THE NWA IS RIGHT THERE. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE IT A CHANCE? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THE WWF IS BETTER?

This is another talking point that I wish would die. I like NWA stuff, but don't see how it's a no-brainer better than WWF stuff. Like as I said earlier in the thread about announcing, most things in pro wrestling come down to what brand of goofy you like best.

 

Frank Jewett wrote a great post on the old tOA board about how he was in college and was super-excited to show his WWF fan buddies the superior NWA and they were bored stiff. I'd consider the high-end stuff from both promotions to be about equal, so really you're left with whether you enjoy the larger than life characters of the WWF or the good ol' southern charm of the NWA. Diff'rent strokes.

[Loss]

The NWA had its share of crap and stuff I didn't like too, but they also had better workers, talkers and crowds.

 

I'd be equally annoyed with someone who only watched the NWA and refused to check anything else out. My favorite wrestling fans are the ones who watch and are interested in everything everywhere.

[sek69]

Also a point to defend Gorilla (or any 80s WWF commentator really), you have to remember they were stuck calling TONS of shitty jobber vs jobber type matches where it would be extremely difficult not to bury the whole thing after the second or third 5 minute chinlock/headlock spot.

[cm funk]

Speaking for myself, I grew up in the heart of WWF country in New England and never had access to the NWA as a kid, be it TV or live events. In the early 90's I started getting to see WCW on TV, and found a video store with all the Starrcades and Turner Home Video releases so I got caught up on it that way

 

Part of liking 80's WWF is nostalgia for me, but there's still a lot of good stuff there that I can go back and enjoy now. And there's a lot of crap in the old southern rasslin too.