Punk vs Henry and watching wrestling "cold"

[Log]

You also have to remember that Liz NEVER got physically involved in things. She might run a distraction or something, but she never touched anyone. Her grabbing Sherri was a big holy shit moment.

[Coffey]

Which I guess forces me to ask the question, what is a classic match in "the traditional sense?"

[Loss]

Savage/Warrior isn't a great match like Flair/Steamboat is a great match. Flair/Steamboat is a great match "in the traditional sense". Relatively clean, feels like an athletic competition, and good matwork or mechanics is what I mean. Some bad matches are traditional and some great matches are not, and vice versa. There's no bias behind that statement.

[Matt D]

I'd say that's right. It wouldn't have fit in in most of the other 80s territories, and no way is WCW smart enough to create that kind of moment.

 

Just to be clear, I agree that the match on its own without the post-match angle, without the story of redemption, without Savage's career at stake, without the crazy heat -- yeah, I can see not liking it. Savage was working the match hurt, and you could argue from an actual wrestling standpoint that Sherri was the best performer in the match. Strip away the setting and atmosphere and it's not fundamentally a very good wrestling match at all. But I can't divorce all of those things here. They are too important.

 

You could point to plenty of heated matches that are not so good in WWF history, but what makes this stand out is that the heat is not 100% the result of having over wrestlers meeting in a Clash of the Titans-like setting, like Hogan/Andre. It's the result of the story itself being compelling, not just because stars happen to be in the ring.

 

Add to that that I'm a sucker for anything that plays out long-term in wrestling, with call backs and continuity. Wrestling that rewards people who remember is my kind of wrestling.

 

It's certainly not a classic match in the traditional sense, but it's quite possibly the best half hour in the history of the WW(W)/F/E.

WWF around this time is generally terrible at call-backs. In the build to Savage/Warrior II at Summerslam, they never once mention that Warrior retired Savage or that Savage cost Warrior the belt.

[Loss]

Part of it is that the WWF writes for casual fans. They don't want anyone to not watch because they don't have an understanding of what's going on, so I don't fault them for keeping it simple, and that approach has paid off to great results over the years. On a personal level, I tend to like forms of entertainment where patience is rewarded and they give nods to people who remember things from a long time ago. That's more important in some styles of wrestling than others. But when I see people teaming who were feuding two months (really, even a year or more) ago and it's not referenced or explained, it takes me out of the moment. I don't expect WWE to change what they are to suit me, and I get why long-term continuity is not a priority for them. It might alienate people who just want to catch the biggest shows. I just especially appreciate those moments when they give a nod to people with long memories, Savage/Warrior being one of them.

[Exposer]

In the WWF/E Smarkschoice poll I voted Savage vs. Warrior number 1. It is by far the best WWE "bioepic" ever and it's not even close.

[NintendoLogic]

Part of it is that the WWF writes for casual fans. They don't want anyone to not watch because they don't have an understanding of what's going on, so I don't fault them for keeping it simple, and that approach has paid off to great results over the years. On a personal level, I tend to like forms of entertainment where patience is rewarded and they give nods to people who remember things from a long time ago. That's more important in some styles of wrestling than others. But when I see people teaming who were feuding two months (really, even a year or more) ago and it's not referenced or explained, it takes me out of the moment. I don't expect WWE to change what they are to suit me, and I get why long-term continuity is not a priority for them. It might alienate people who just want to catch the biggest shows. I just especially appreciate those moments when they give a nod to people with long memories, Savage/Warrior being one of them.

Is this really true, though? I see plenty of callbacks to the past in the WWE. The Orton/Punk feud last year was based on Punk wanting revenge for Legacy jumping him backstage and forcing him to forfeit the title three years previous. And the current Kane/Orton feud was traced back to a match they had on Smackdown last year that I had actually forgotten about before they brought it up. Not to mention all the pre-match video packages that are intended to bring casual fans up to speed. I think it's less an explicit philosophy than it is simple incompetence.