Curt Hennig

[Guest Nell Santucci]

Curt Hennig is a wrestler who is never condemned by anyone but where the consensus about his work has a lot of variance about whether he should have been a guy to carry a promotion. In that sense, I think Hennig is overrated. Meltzer argues he was one of the top 5 workers for a good three-year stretch. Bix showed that that was not the consensus in Hennig's time. I find Hennig's work to be a mixed bag of good to great stuff. One match that struck me was against Hogan at MSG in Jan. 1990. You can really see he was capable of being "great" as his work was just as dynamic as Flair's. But a lot of his work in that era was lackluster for a great worker. What does that mean?

 

I criticize primarily his match components with respect to his work. His bumping was tremendous. Though he could pass his overselling, he bumped too much and too early imo. Furthermore, when Hennig did get on the offensive, his offense wasn't aggressive enough, as he went too technical in an era where faces dominated and hence would undersell his offense by having the face dominate and not sell, say, a knee injury, which would have allowed Hennig to get heat. So his offense was misplaced in the broader context of WWE storytelling. Of course, Hennig was at his best against technical marvels like Bret Hart, and his offense complemented those workers very well and hence his offense was efficient. But his broader WWE work was marked by rampant inefficiency for reasons I highlighted. Hennig's seeming (?) inability to adjust his style to adapt in WWE's face-driven, musclehead epoch could count as a mark against him.

 

I need to study more of his AWA matches. I've seen a few over the years but need to review them again.

 

Overall, I liken Hennig to Ziggler, not just because of bumping but because, like Ziggler, Hennig bumps so much that it often detracted from the broader story. Furthermore, like Ziggler, a lot of Hennig's matches came within a hair or two of being great as neither guy seems to be able to approach the essence of a great match, which is excellent storytelling, even if their matches are almost always enjoyable and technically sound.

 

In that sense, I'd rate Hennig 8/10.

[Childs]

The problem with Henning is that his most-seen stuff is also his most disappointing. He was a phenomenal young talent. Based on his Portland and AWA work, you could've convinced me he was headed for a top-20 all-time kind of career. Tremendous babyface, very good heel champion when he made the turn in AWA. In addition to the bumping, he could brawl, work holds, fly, connect emotionally. As Mr. Perfect, he had his moments. But he became overly reliant on showy bumping and went months at a time without quality matches.

 

So in a way, his career was both better and worse than a lot of fans would perceive.

[Dylan Waco]

I agree with Childs

 

Mr. Perfect was an incredibly fun gimmick and you can find spirited and perhaps even great Hennig matches/performances under that gimmick. But he was never the same after he went to Vince.

 

I'd say from the cumulative period between 82-88 Hennig was top twenty in the world and you could probably make a case for him in the top ten.

[Matt D]

I do think he had a quite good and underrated 1993 as a babyface if you dig a bit, but yeah, his pre-89 stuff is just on a different level than his WWF work.

[Dylan Waco]

I almost mentioned the Doink stuff because I really like it. It's possible the rest of that year holds up well to. Even still it's not the norm for his post-AWA career

[Matt D]

It's really the only meaningful post-87 Babyface work of his career.

 

I actually think a match that everyone who's been following the AWA set needs to see is Martel/Hennig vs Jumbo/Haku from April, 1990 since it really shows how neutered two of the very best guys on the AWA 80s set had become in the WWF.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

It's really the only meaningful post-87 Babyface work of his career.

 

I actually think a match that everyone who's been following the AWA set needs to see is Martel/Hennig vs Jumbo/Haku from April, 1990 since it really shows how neutered two of the very best guys on the AWA 80s set had become in the WWF.

I watched that match and Hennig v. Jumbo Tsuruta from December 4, 1985. There was nothing wrong with that match, but it was weird watching the match because there didn't seem to be any evident storytelling: just a long pro-wrestling exhibition where Hennig struggles, only to be put down. It was a weird match to watch, however, since it didn't seem like they were building to anything, and the finish was anti-climatic. *** 1/4. That tag match was interesting since it seemed like they were trying to win a fight, which is something WWF matches have almost always lacked in emaciating their workers. ***1/2.

 

When I get time, I'll watch more Hennig/Jumbo. I want to see Hennig/Bockwinkel matches and Hennig/Lawler.

 

Would you say a lot of pre-national expansion wrestling (and its post-national expansion derivatives) is characterized by a lack of high spots? Late 80's and 90's Japanese wrestling matches all across the board seem to incorporate high spots to make finishes meaningful. Perhaps it's possible that pre-1986 wrestling just had no high spots, that their storytelling was largely just two guys trying to beat each other and using body parts to tell stories. So it might be a culture shock and so I'll have to look at these matches from another angle to appreciate its value. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Hennig/Jumbo. As it clear by my rating, the match was good and acceptable but nothing special as far as I can tell.

 

EDIT: I should note too that the silence of the crowd was off putting to say the least, even for a Japanese crowd.

[NintendoLogic]

I thought the match where Lawler won the AWA title was a huge disappointment, and it wasn't just because of Jackie Fargo's involvement. That would seem to lend credence to the notion that Hennig lacked adaptability.

[Childs]

I don't think "lacked adaptability" is the right criticism for Henning. He worked a fiery 10-minute brawl with Hansen and an hour-long technical build with Bockwinkel in the same 12 months, and both are great matches with tremendous performances by him. He got over everywhere he went and did it playing fairly different roles.

 

The Jumbo match from '85 and the Lawler title change aren't anywhere near the best examples of his work, though neither is bad.

 

The criticism of Curt is that once he hit the biggest stage, he bought into one aspect of his work to the exclusion and detriment of a lot of his best tools (well, most of the time ... I really like his '90 matches against Tito.)

[Loss]

I haven't seen much pre-WWF Hennig, but my biggest criticism of Mr. Perfect-era Hennig is that he had almost no offense and that his basics (punching, kicking, etc) looked too finessed. He came across as an athletic guy, but not really a tough guy.

[Guest Nell Santucci]

I haven't seen much pre-WWF Hennig, but my biggest criticism of Mr. Perfect-era Hennig is that he had almost no offense and that his basics (punching, kicking, etc) looked too finessed. He came across as an athletic guy, but not really a tough guy.

That captures the essence of what I argued.

[Dylan Waco]

I actually think Hennig was an extremely adaptable wrestler at his peak. I think the AWA Set proves that and Portland stuff that will eventually appear on that set adds to that. He was a great white meat babyface and a great cocky heel. He could work as a whippersnapper challenger to Bock, a fiery babyface seeking revenge against Hansen, or NWA champ style studio main event style as heel v. super limited guys like Mitch Snow or DJ Peterson. He was a very strong tag worker. He worked extremely stiff and was an excellent brawler when called on to brawl. He had very good timing as a babyface making comebacks and was excellent running the gamut between "registering" and "dying" when selling. He was a great bumper both as a face and a heel. He had some very dynamic highspots for the era and was a great athlete. He was actually quite adept on the mat for the style of mat work he was working. He was able to save and/or make convoluted or poorly thought out gimmick matches work.

 

To be honest I think pre-WWF Hennig was far more adaptable then someone like Bret Hart, but I sometimes think my definition of adaptable is different then others.

[goc]

I don't think "lacked adaptability" is the right criticism for Henning. He worked a fiery 10-minute brawl with Hansen and an hour-long technical build with Bockwinkel in the same 12 months, and both are great matches with tremendous performances by him. He got over everywhere he went and did it playing fairly different roles.

 

The Jumbo match from '85 and the Lawler title change aren't anywhere near the best examples of his work, though neither is bad.

 

The criticism of Curt is that once he hit the biggest stage, he bought into one aspect of his work to the exclusion and detriment of a lot of his best tools (well, most of the time ... I really like his '90 matches against Tito.)

The thing about Curt is that he WAS adaptable but it just feels like his comfort zone was so far away from the best he was capable of. That 10 minute brawl with Hansen is the only match I've even considered for my #1 on the AWA ballot. I love Hennig in that match, he comes across as such an ass kicker. But you very rarely see that Curt, even while he was babyface in AWA. After watching the AWA set I am honestly not that high on Curt Hennig. There's too much stuff to make you realize how much better he could have been.

[Dylan Waco]

I don't think "lacked adaptability" is the right criticism for Henning. He worked a fiery 10-minute brawl with Hansen and an hour-long technical build with Bockwinkel in the same 12 months, and both are great matches with tremendous performances by him. He got over everywhere he went and did it playing fairly different roles.

 

The Jumbo match from '85 and the Lawler title change aren't anywhere near the best examples of his work, though neither is bad.

 

The criticism of Curt is that once he hit the biggest stage, he bought into one aspect of his work to the exclusion and detriment of a lot of his best tools (well, most of the time ... I really like his '90 matches against Tito.)

The thing about Curt is that he WAS adaptable but it just feels like his comfort zone was so far away from the best he was capable of. That 10 minute brawl with Hansen is the only match I've even considered for my #1 on the AWA ballot. I love Hennig in that match, he comes across as such an ass kicker. But you very rarely see that Curt, even while he was babyface in AWA. After watching the AWA set I am honestly not that high on Curt Hennig. There's too much stuff to make you realize how much better he could have been.

 

That Hansen brawl is my number 2

 

I think this is an interesting take, because I haven't heard anyone else express this opinion. I am wondering if anyone else feels this way. Also interested to hear more about why you think Curt was so weak in the AWA

[khawk20]

I'm not sure that he's saying Curt was weak in the AWA so much as he's saying he had so much more he could have brought with him to the WWF. I could be wrong, though.

 

One thing about Curt--he's as good an example as you can find of how a wrestler was built up over time, back in the day. From an initial rub being the son of Larry "the Ax", with a few wins against lower-mid level competition and some competitive matchups in the AWA, through his early WWF run as a competitive job-guy, to some time honing his skills as a top-end competitior in Portland, then back to the AWA as a mid-level competitor winning some and losing some, forward though a stint as a competitive weak link doing some work with his Dad in higher-level tag matches, and then a push as a higher-level singles and tag worker, over to his establishment as a main-event talent, to his transition to full-time heel as AWA Champion. We're talking a slow build from 1981 thorough 1988, working steadily upward until there was literally nothing left to do in the AWA, and leaving the area to go to Vince as a guy that learned everything he needed to know to be successful anywhere he went.

His ascension to the top also allowed his body time to grow (with and without help), so that, even as a smaller-framed wrestler, he was able to avoid being stigmatized as "too small" to compete in a big-man area.

Watching Curt grow through the 80's never gave me the impression he wasn't working up to his potential, he gave me the impression that he was a great example of natural growth within the business. Finding a comfort zone, in his case, was his payoff to the growth he worked at in the 80's.

[JerryvonKramer]

I think WWF is getting quite a raw ride in this thread. I like the idea of a pure finesse wrestler and if you were to ask most people "which wrestler defines finesse?", the majority answer you'd get back would be Mr. Perfect.

 

As Mr. Perfect, he was the closest thing I've seen to the wrestling equivalent of a gentlemen fencer. His OTT bumping played into this. He even bumped with savoir faire.

 

Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there?

 

I've often thought that the right way of looking at that era of WWF is to think of it like the character select screen of Street Fighter 2. That game wouldn't have been nearly as successful if you had a choice of eight Ryu or Kens. It's all about the very different flavours and play styles. Each of them has a USP. Zangief has a great close game, Dhalsim has the long reach, Chun-Li is fast, etc. etc.

 

The main thing any worker had to do in the WWF environment was stand out and be distinctive and memorable. Mr. Perfect was absolutely unique in this regard. No one moved like him with springs in his feet. No one did 100% technical moves like the perfect-plex.

 

Shouldn't we measure that run more on how effective it was than against what he was doing in AWA?

 

How effective was it? Well how many times does Mr. Perfect turn up on "best wrestler ever" lists made by mainstream fans who've never seen AWA? The answer is lots. So he did his job. How many times does Skinner turn up on those lists? Or Hercules? Or even guys like Tito and Greg Valentine?

 

Point is: he did was needed to get over and be a memorable for the ages in that environment. Did Barry Windham ever achieve this?

 

And second point is: can anyone point to a single other guy who works in the manner that Curt did as Mr. Perfect? Feels like a total one off. How many times can you say that in wrestling?

[Matt D]

I think WWF is getting quite a raw ride in this thread. I like the idea of a pure finesse wrestler and if you were to ask most people "which wrestler defines finesse?", the majority answer you'd get back would be Mr. Perfect.

 

As Mr. Perfect, he was the closest thing I've seen to the wrestling equivalent of a gentlemen fencer. His OTT bumping played into this. He even bumped with savoir faire.

 

Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there?

 

I've often thought that the right way of looking at that era of WWF is to think of it like the character select screen of Street Fighter 2. That game wouldn't have been nearly as successful if you had a choice of eight Ryu or Kens. It's all about the very different flavours and play styles. Each of them has a USP. Zangief has a great close game, Dhalsim has the long reach, Chun-Li is fast, etc. etc.

 

The main thing any worker had to do in the WWF environment was stand out and be distinctive and memorable. Mr. Perfect was absolutely unique in this regard. No one moved like him with springs in his feet. No one did 100% technical moves like the perfect-plex.

 

Shouldn't we measure that run more on how effective it was than against what he was doing in AWA?

 

How effective was it? Well how many times does Mr. Perfect turn up on "best wrestler ever" lists made by mainstream fans who've never seen AWA? The answer is lots. So he did his job. How many times does Skinner turn up on those lists? Or Hercules? Or even guys like Tito and Greg Valentine?

 

Point is: he did was needed to get over and be a memorable for the ages in that environment. Did Barry Windham ever achieve this?

 

And second point is: can anyone point to a single other guy who works in the manner that Curt did as Mr. Perfect? Feels like a total one off. How many times can you say that in wrestling?

Yeah, well those people are jerks who haven't rewatched the matches with the sort of eye we do. He is part of a lot of people's nostalgia and was part of a pretty powerful hype engine. It doesn't mean that he wasn't one of the worst drawing Hogan opponents and has a bunch of ultimately empty matches to show for his trouble. But I'm glad he's a rousing force in the hearts of many and on a lot of ultimately meaningless lists.

[JerryvonKramer]

Did you answer my second question there Matt? Who else worked like him?

 

Are you saying that the only reasons he makes those lists is nostalgia and WWE's own generated hype? Why aren't some of those other guys making those lists? Can't you give him any credit at all?

[soup23]

I think WWF is getting quite a raw ride in this thread. I like the idea of a pure finesse wrestler and if you were to ask most people "which wrestler defines finesse?", the majority answer you'd get back would be Mr. Perfect.

 

As Mr. Perfect, he was the closest thing I've seen to the wrestling equivalent of a gentlemen fencer. His OTT bumping played into this. He even bumped with savoir faire.

 

Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there?

 

I've often thought that the right way of looking at that era of WWF is to think of it like the character select screen of Street Fighter 2. That game wouldn't have been nearly as successful if you had a choice of eight Ryu or Kens. It's all about the very different flavours and play styles. Each of them has a USP. Zangief has a great close game, Dhalsim has the long reach, Chun-Li is fast, etc. etc.

 

The main thing any worker had to do in the WWF environment was stand out and be distinctive and memorable. Mr. Perfect was absolutely unique in this regard. No one moved like him with springs in his feet. No one did 100% technical moves like the perfect-plex.

 

Shouldn't we measure that run more on how effective it was than against what he was doing in AWA?

 

How effective was it? Well how many times does Mr. Perfect turn up on "best wrestler ever" lists made by mainstream fans who've never seen AWA? The answer is lots. So he did his job. How many times does Skinner turn up on those lists? Or Hercules? Or even guys like Tito and Greg Valentine?

 

Point is: he did was needed to get over and be a memorable for the ages in that environment. Did Barry Windham ever achieve this?

 

And second point is: can anyone point to a single other guy who works in the manner that Curt did as Mr. Perfect? Feels like a total one off. How many times can you say that in wrestling?

Wow Parv, I disagree with most of this. Memorableness and showing up on some lists means nothing to the bottom line of WWE so those things are as insignificant to them as us going back and rewatching the footage. In fact, by the time Perfect became an upper mid carder was when the Rock N Wrestling boom started declining. I honestly can't see you liking many Perfect matches in retrospect because if you thought Tully didn't get enough offense in vs. Kernoodle that is essentially most big time Perfect matches I have seen from 1990-1991 with the exception of the Tito and Bret stuff. He is bumping right along against Hogan in more drmatic fashion than his manager that he is teaming with.

[khawk20]

Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there?

"Unfavourable" is one way to look at it, but only if you're hyper-sensitive to WWF criticism.

 

Besides, isn't the concept of "The Microscope" to examine and compare someone's work throughout his career? So yeah, if AWA Curt ends up being considered the more favourable era in which to watch his matches, so be it.

 

What I'm getting from comments here is that he *could* have done a lot more during his WWF time, and beyond. He didn't because he didn't have to in order to be successful in the WWF. Is that a criticism? Perhaps, but it really doesn't detract from the concept that Mr Perfect was a successful, memorable character.

[Matt D]

Did you answer my second question there Matt? Who else worked like him?

 

Are you saying that the only reasons he makes those lists is nostalgia and WWE's own generated hype? Why aren't some of those other guys making those lists? Can't you give him any credit at all?

No one works like Kofi Kingston now. He's relatively over in part due to how he works. He's vaguely marketable that way. No one says he's actually any good.

 

I think Hennig worked the best matches he could given the instructions he was given by management and the agents. That's the credit I will give him, but he was neutered compared to his AWA run.

[Jimmy Redman]

Did you answer my second question there Matt? Who else worked like him?

 

Are you saying that the only reasons he makes those lists is nostalgia and WWE's own generated hype? Why aren't some of those other guys making those lists? Can't you give him any credit at all?

No one works like Kofi Kingston now. He's relatively over in part due to how he works. He's vaguely marketable that way. No one says he's actually any good.

 

I do. *hides*

[JerryvonKramer]

I think WWF is getting quite a raw ride in this thread. I like the idea of a pure finesse wrestler and if you were to ask most people "which wrestler defines finesse?", the majority answer you'd get back would be Mr. Perfect.

 

As Mr. Perfect, he was the closest thing I've seen to the wrestling equivalent of a gentlemen fencer. His OTT bumping played into this. He even bumped with savoir faire.

 

Do we need to keep comparing his WWF stuff unfavourably with AWA Curt? How many guys who had lengthy runs pre-WWF in that era did their very best work there?

 

I've often thought that the right way of looking at that era of WWF is to think of it like the character select screen of Street Fighter 2. That game wouldn't have been nearly as successful if you had a choice of eight Ryu or Kens. It's all about the very different flavours and play styles. Each of them has a USP. Zangief has a great close game, Dhalsim has the long reach, Chun-Li is fast, etc. etc.

 

The main thing any worker had to do in the WWF environment was stand out and be distinctive and memorable. Mr. Perfect was absolutely unique in this regard. No one moved like him with springs in his feet. No one did 100% technical moves like the perfect-plex.

 

Shouldn't we measure that run more on how effective it was than against what he was doing in AWA?

 

How effective was it? Well how many times does Mr. Perfect turn up on "best wrestler ever" lists made by mainstream fans who've never seen AWA? The answer is lots. So he did his job. How many times does Skinner turn up on those lists? Or Hercules? Or even guys like Tito and Greg Valentine?

 

Point is: he did was needed to get over and be a memorable for the ages in that environment. Did Barry Windham ever achieve this?

 

And second point is: can anyone point to a single other guy who works in the manner that Curt did as Mr. Perfect? Feels like a total one off. How many times can you say that in wrestling?

Wow Parv, I disagree with most of this. Memorableness and showing up on some lists means nothing to the bottom line of WWE so those things are as insignificant to them as us going back and rewatching the footage. In fact, by the time Perfect became an upper mid carder was when the Rock N Wrestling boom started declining. I honestly can't see you liking many Perfect matches in retrospect because if you thought Tully didn't get enough offense in vs. Kernoodle that is essentially most big time Perfect matches I have seen from 1990-1991 with the exception of the Tito and Bret stuff. He is bumping right along against Hogan in more drmatic fashion than his manager that he is teaming with.

 

Ha ha, should have seen this coming. And I'm not saying I would dig those matches. I remember that one of his when he's tagging with The Genius pretty well.

 

My argument is something like this:

 

Premise1: WWF in the Hogan era emphasized entertainment and character over workrate.

Premise2: Therefore, work doesn't get guys over, but being distinctive and creating a big impression do.

Conclusion: Therefore, workers in WWF should be judged against different criteria from more workrate heavy promotions.

 

Premise1: Mr. Perfect was distinctive and created such a big impression that 20 years later countless mainstream fans think he's one of the best wrestlers of all time.

Conclusion: You have to say, therefore, that he did his job well.

 

Premise1: In a WWF context, the management wanted something very specific out of their matches.

Conclusion: Therefore, it's not fair to judge workers against expectations we have from other promotions.

 

I am not entirely comfortable with this sort of relativism, it goes against my instincts, but I can't overlook the idea of guys making the best of whatever role is given to them. What's appropriate for the audience?

 

It's all those awesome Mr. Perfect skits and bouncing around the ring like a lunatic for Hulk Hogan. It's not being an "asskicker".

 

One way of looking at it is to say that he was much more limited in WWF, as people in this thread have suggested. A different way to look at it is to say that he selected what was appropriate for the character and the performance. We don't criticize Al Pacino because he's not doing his Dog Day Afternoon stuff in Cruising. We shouldn't criticize Curt because he didn't do his AWA stuff in WWF. He was playing a different character.

 

Saying he was "capable of more" isn't exactly recognizing all of the limitations and constraints he was working under.

 

Sure, you can say you prefer his AWA stuff, that's fine. You can also say Al Pacino is better in Dog Day Afternoon than in Cruising. But it seemed to me like people were saying that he should have been a bit more like his AWA self in WWF.

 

Is his WWF stuff overrated? Absolutely. But let's not go too far the other way. It's been said a lot that he was working in a comfort zone. How about the idea that he was actually crafting a character and exercising quite a lot of self-restraint to quash some of his more firey traits in that process?

 

"Comfort zone" suggests that he was doing something that came naturally to him and wasn't pushing himself. Seems to me that it's much more likely that "natural Curt" is going to be your AWA Curt. Surely that was his comfort zone, and Mr. Perfect was something he had to be self-conscious about and control more. No?

[Childs]

I don't know which role required him to be more self-conscious. But it seems tiresome to point out that it's hard to separate a guy's work from the style of his promotion. I mean, no shit, right? I don't blame Curt for wrestling the way he did in WWF. And yes, it worked for him to a degree. But it's totally fair to say he was on track to have an all-time great in-ring career and fell off that track because he went to a place that de-emphasized a lot of his best tools. To take your Pacino example, wouldn't you have to argue that Al's career is more flawed because he's been a caricature of his own hammiest qualities for most of the last 20 years? Has he really been kind to the legacy he created in his first 20? That doesn't mean the later work invalidates the good stuff. But as fans, we're allowed to be disappointed when a talented performer's career doesn't live up to our best hopes.

 

As for Curt's uniqueness, I think we could say a lot of the same shit about Shawn Michaels.

[Loss]

Yes, heel Shawn worked almost exactly like Mr. Perfect -- lots of exaggerated, showy bumps, but no real offense or mean streak.

 

Ziggler is also called a modern day version of Mr. Perfect all the time.

 

We can simultaneously give credit to Mr. Perfect for being an effective character and worker for his era, while also criticizing the things about it that don't hold up to scrutiny.