The Steve Austin Show

[rovert]

Lord William Regal is today's show

 

Finally

 

http://podcastone.com/Steve-Austin-Show-Clean

[rovert]

What is Regal talking about when he refers to Savage vs Steamboat being one of his favourite matches until he talked to Ricky about it?

 

How Savage put it together or Hogan's jealously?

[Loss]

Steamboat supposedly isn't a huge fan of that match because it was so laid out in advance and choreographed. He's always felt the best matches are improvised based on how the crowd is reacting and called in the ring.

[rovert]

Steamboat supposedly isn't a huge fan of that match because it was so laid out in advance and choreographed. He's always felt the best matches are improvised based on how the crowd is reacting and called in the ring.

 

I am aware of the stories. Just you have to listen to Regal's quiver voice and tone drop when he talks about it. Steamboat struck me as bemused by Savage's approach rather than out right hating it.

 

I guess the simple explanation is that Regal doesn't want to speak ill of the dead now and/or Ricky is more down on it privately than publicly.

[shoe]

People always tell him what is his favorite match? The Flair one or the Savage one. He'll answer it with the what do you think which one I enjoy after explaining the radical differences. I don't think Steamboat respects the way on how they laid the match out.

[Loss]

Austin should have Steamboat on his show.

[Loss]

By comparison, I remember reading that Flair and Steamboat went into Clash VI without a finish. The only thing they knew was that Steamboat would retain, but Flair would need an out to set up the rematch at Wrestle War. But the specifics of the finish were just called in the ring.

[shoe]

If you could have great matches calling it in the ring verse being married to Savage for 6 months and going over the script every time they worked together, getting together before and after shows to tweak things would get old fast.

[Loss]

I think the difference between those matches is the difference between performing and working. I remember Austin saying once, "We don't work anymore. We perform." I always loved that line, and the difference in these matches is a good way to capture that.

[Loss]

In defense of Savage, I will also say that Flair didn't have a ton of restrictions in the 80s. He usually went on last with the freedom to keep the match going until it was where he wanted it. The WWF would never let anyone go to the ring with freedom to go as long as they wanted and craft a finish on the fly.

[shoe]

Austin should have Steamboat on his show.

I've sent E-mails and a couple of tweets to Austin about this. Loss I also agree about freedom in the ring.

[peachchaos]

I think the difference between those matches is the difference between performing and working. I remember Austin saying once, "We don't work anymore. We perform." I always loved that line, and the difference in these matches is a good way to capture that.

 

sort of the thesis of PWO, in a way

[alexoblivion]

Hearing Austin and Regal endorse Flair as goat was awesome, as was their discussion on British wrestling. For some reason, the proper wrist lock talk between the two was really fascinating to me. Someone should also email Austin a link to ohtani's jacket lucha blog or some lucha recommendations.

[goodhelmet]

Savage has too many great "performances" for me to trash that style of calling a match. It's also the reason that the DDP-Goldberg match turned out as well as it did. I understand for wrestlers, if that is your craft, it takes a certain amount of pride to be able to say you can call a match on the fly. However, ultimately the end result of what ends up on my screen is all that matters.

[WingedEagle]

Totally agree, I've never understood why fans care if the match is laid out beforehand. Its one thing if I can see them calling spots during the match, but as long as everything looks spontaneous and on the up & up I never give any thought to how much is improvised vs. scripted.

[Loss]

The argument is that to perform a practiced match in front of an audience is not something that requires any skill except memorization.

[goodhelmet]

From a wrestler's standpoint. From a viewer's standpoint, it absolutely should not matter.

[Jimmy Redman]

The argument is that to perform a practiced match in front of an audience is not something that requires any skill except memorization.

 

I disagree with this as well. You can plan out the best match in the world move by move, but you still have to go out there and execute it, and have the charisma and ability to project and sell whatever it is to make it work.

[Loss]

That's great. The question was asked of what Steamboat's problem was with the Savage matches. That was his problem.

 

But I think this goes back to why I'm more comfortable ranking matches than workers. I feel like we have the information we need to judge the meal (the match). We don't necessarily have all the info we need to judge the chef (the wrestler). This is why I can rank the top 100 matches of 1990, but struggle listing the top 10 wrestlers. I can look at output and who's doing what in a match, but even that is sometimes part of the illusion.

[goodhelmet]

That's already understood. The point made by Jimmy and myself is that ultimately it doesn't matter.

[Loss]

To you. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all.

[shoe]

I don't care how they do the match. Just that I like it. Though I can understand Steamboats problem with working that way. Instead of doing something he wants to do. He's with Savage going move #1 is lock up.

[goodhelmet]

I already acknowledged that it would matter to the wrestlers in back.

[Loss]

I don't want to say it matters to me every time out, but when I hear inside stories of how matches are put together, it can sometimes make them more impressive to me. Not necessarily better, that's not the right word. But more impressive.

 

When I hear that Davey Boy went under the ring and puked at Summerslam '92 and then completely blanked and Bret had to walk him through the rest of the match, it impresses me that they had a match as good as they had under those circumstances, and also makes me think more of Bret. I don't know if it makes me think more of the match or not, but it does make me respect and appreciate the obstacles that were there that could have wrecked the match.

 

A match doesn't have to have that stuff happening for me to like it or think it's impressive, but as someone who likes increasing his understanding of what it takes to put together good wrestling matches, those stories carry a little weight with me sometimes, depending on the specifics.

 

And while it seemed otherwise, I really wasn't making a value judgment as much as I was just sharing what Steamboat thought and what Flair has often said about calling matches in the ring and thinking on his feet. My only value judgment is that I like Clash VI slightly better than Wrestlemania III, so hey, I guess the Flair/Steamboat philosophy worked really well. Then again, Savage/Steamboat is a great match too, so that one did as well.

 

Savage was a great wrestler who I enjoyed a lot. DDP, as mentioned, was able to get great results out of pre-planning with Goldberg. All that matters to me as a fan is that they got there, not necessarily how they got there. But sometimes, finding out how they got there is cool. When I hear that Clash VI was just Flair and Steamboat thinking on their feet for 55 minutes, I think, "Wow, it says a lot about those guys that they are capable of doing something like that. I'm not sure very many others could."

 

It's all just additional info that we can do with as we please.

[goodhelmet]

I agree with all of that but my final point is that pre-planned or not, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of a match. Hell, I didn't even know Savage-Steamboat was pre-planned until 15 years after the match.

 

Much more interesting question.... were the Flair vs. Savage matches pre-planned or called on the fly?