Curt Hennig

[JerryvonKramer]

Sure, I can go along with that Childs. Makes sense. And I agree that the point is a bit tiresome.

 

Also, what is his "most seen" WWF stuff would you say?

 

vs. Owen, WM5

vs. Bret, Summerslam

vs. Flair, loser leaves town

vs. Luger, WM9

vs. Bret, KOTR

 

Does he have anything else of note? Someone mentioned matches with Tito.

 

The Bret match has a big rep with mainstream fans, and I remember thinking it was great as a kid and being disappointed with the KOTR 93 match.

 

I guess the guys who've been through the Yearbooks recently could make a good call on how well those matches rank with other WWF matches in those years.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't buy the argument that Curt was unfairly restrained by the shackles of the WWF. Guys like Randy Savage and Ricky Steamboat were far more successful, from both a workrate standpoint and a distinctive/big impression one, while operating under similar constraints.

 

EDIT: I should note that I consider the Bret match at KOTR a top ten match in WWF history.

[BrickHithouse]

I love the over-the-top ridiculous selling and can watch it all day long. The 360 mid-air spin from a slap to the face, crotching on the post, the general ridiculousness that Mr. Perfect matches bring. To quote George C Scott in Patton "I love it. God help me I love it so".

[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.

 

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?

 

In regards to premise 1, entertainment was assuredly emphasized in the WWF up to and including today, but that is not to take away the fact that other people in that era were able to take to craft memorable characters and sustain workrate motives. Savage and Hogan himself are the first two that come to mind. The only other candidate I see contending with Perfect for someone that had so many great matches elsewhere and so little in the WWF is Dibiase.

 

Premise 2 is not accurate because Perfect did not draw throughout his career in the WWF so therefore he was not really over.

 

Conclusion creates a strawman argument that doesnt sit well with me. If we cant judge WWF against promotions like NWA then we cant really judge NWA against Japan (different working schedules) or lucha (limited footage) or against USWA since we lack so much arena footage. I am always under the impression that any match in wrestling history can be judged and evaluated against any past or previous match. I use this premise for all types of entertainment I enjoy.

 

Second premise I also disagree with because again what does it matter now business wise that people list perfect in their top 20 workers. WWE might get a few more sales out of his dvd (which was not one of their best sellers) but to the overall bottom line it means nothing. I don't think you can build up these lists significance as a pro to the argument while using our retaliations as a con.

I don't know how satisfied WWF was with his overall career but its clear he did not do his job really well when giving the chance to be on top of the card, because his stuff with Hogan is really bad compared to everyone else. Early 1990 was not as hot business wise as 1987 but there is no way over the hill Harley should be drawing that much more against Hogan than Perfect. Earthquake right after Perfect did better than him.

 

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 cant speak for everyone else but this is a premise I welcome when it is done well. I loved the fact that Hogan had a big brawl type match vs. Hansen in April 1990 right after he worked the signature WWF babyface style match with Warrior a few days earlier. He followed that up by working short, underdog brawls vs. Earthquake. Perfect not wrestling like AWA Curt is not the reason I dislike him in the WWF. Curt being unfocused and acting like he got shot with a gun no matter whether its Hulk Hogan or some jobber on Superstars is where the problems start to creep in.

 

 

This is Perfect as IC Champ vs. Kevin Reno. He gets outsmarted, then flies over the top rope off a dropkick by Reno. Comes back in and works on the leg for a minute to setup the perfect plex? Huh, not the best psychology.

[Matt D]

I don't want this to come off as an attack, Parv, and it's not an all the time thing by any means, but a lot of times, it feels like you're arguing from a point of trying to justify your nostalgia.

[tomk]

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?

 

Who else worked like him?

"This guy is really great at conveying a character, bumping all over the ring pretty and has one good looking piece of offense" covers lots of WWF heels.

HBK has already been mentioned.

Adonis certainly worked like that in WWF.

Flair pretty much worked like that in the WWF.

Harley Race worked like that in the WWF.

First year or so of Savage is all flamboyant bumping a finesse elbow and scroll interference.

Rude.

When he didn't have the power of the cast, I'd say Orton worked that way in the WWF.

I could see arguing that Terry Funk worked that way in the WWF 80s.

The Genius Lanny Poffo worked like that.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would think that Perfect working was somehow distinctive.

 

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.

Lots of guys had cool skits.

Beefcake's pre-Dancing Bear stripper skit is amazing and haunted children's nightmares.

Lots of guys bounced around the ring like a lunatic for Hogan.

Lots of guys had more memorable matches as guy bouncing around ring for Hogan.

Lots of guys were more successful as drawing opponents bouncing around the ring for Hogan.

 

Measuring Perfect on a scale based on awesome skits and bouncing around for Hogan in a formula fed where lots of guys had awesome skits and bounced around for Hogan doesn't really do Perfect a ton of favors.

[Childs]

Sure, I can go along with that Childs. Makes sense. And I agree that the point is a bit tiresome.

 

Also, what is his "most seen" WWF stuff would you say?

 

vs. Owen, WM5

vs. Bret, Summerslam

vs. Flair, loser leaves town

vs. Luger, WM9

vs. Bret, KOTR

 

Does he have anything else of note? Someone mentioned matches with Tito.

 

The Bret match has a big rep with mainstream fans, and I remember thinking it was great as a kid and being disappointed with the KOTR 93 match.

 

I guess the guys who've been through the Yearbooks recently could make a good call on how well those matches rank with other WWF matches in those years.

Yeah, I mentioned the Tito matches from 1990, which were really good and featured Henning working more ruggedly. Maybe Tito encouraged that. We certainly know from the Valentine series that he was down for that kind of work.

 

The Bret matches feel like his most famous WWF outings by a good stretch, and they're both very good. In addition to the stuff you mentioned, there are the Hogan matches, which I don't like. He had some matches with Ron Garvin in 1989 that you would think might have brought out some aggression but instead highlighted the weakness of his WWF offense.

[JerryvonKramer]

I honestly don't think any of those guys are like Perfect. They may have done a lot of bumping, but no one did it quite like him.

 

I'd actually flip that and question how anyone can think he wasn't distinctive. I think he was REALLY distinctive.

 

Maybe not on the level of what he was doing (lots of bumping, not much offense), but on the level of exactly how. I've seen guys bump like Race or Flair, I've never seen anyone else bump like Perfect.

[JerryvonKramer]

Chad, I will agree that his selling is downright idiotic if you think about it even for a second. But like Brickhithouse, I get a kick out of it and do think it is more or less unique. It may have influences from Stevens or Rose or others, but it's really it's own thing. It's taking the Steamboat overselling to ridiculous new lengths. A punch can legit send him to the outside.

 

Totally stupid and illogical sure, but in my mind it stands out for exactly that reason. It's totally bonkers.

 

Matt - it's possible my motivation for adopting these arguments stems from that place. DiBiase and Perfect were my guys so I'm drawn to bat for them, I can take that as a valid knock.

 

I'm perfectly content to drop it though because what Childs said with the Pacino analogy is basically right.

 

I do watch WWF with "a different head on" though, maybe I shouldn't.

[Dylan Waco]

There is nothing wrong with watching different feds expecting/looking for different things. I think we all do that. But I don't subscribe to the theory that you can't judge work by a universal standard.

 

Was Hennig effective? Well he is well remembered by many (though I have to say I'm not entirely sure what the term "mainstream" fan means), but he wasn't a drawing card...ever. I was and am a big fan of the Perfect gimmick and try to always mention that when I note the fact that his work was clearly weaker for it. I basically agree with Tom's point about how he worked, though I would say he was a fairly unique bumper, for whatever that is worth.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I'm not entirely sure what the term "mainstream" fan means

"Mainstream fan" = anybody who knows who Hulk Hogan is and doesn't know what the Wrestling Observer or the PWO board is.

[JerryvonKramer]

"Mainstream fan" is just my way of saying "non-hardcore" fan, or possibly even just "WWF/E fan".

 

It's not hard to find this sort of fan because they are absolutely everywhere and their view is the dominant one reflected in the available wrestling media.

 

Do a little google search for "best wrestlers ever"

 

Take a look at this: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-...all-time?page=3

 

Curt Hennig is ranked above Lou Thesz, Terry Funk and Jerry Lawler.

 

There is absolutely no mention of the AWA in what they write there. He is ranked at 23 on the basis of being Mr. Perfect alone. There are literally hundreds of similar lists on the internet. Perfect almost always comes in top 25.

 

It's not right, obviously. In fact most of those lists are pretty absurd.

 

I was just making the point that what he did in his fairly brief WWF run has left a really really lasting impression with "mainstream fans". He must have done something right.

 

The perception of him is clearly far greater than the reality, it's quite interesting how that has happened I suppose. I get the impression there's a lost of posturing by younger guys too though, they might point to Perfect as a demonstration of their deep knowledge or hardcore fandom. Something like that. It goes on.

[Loss]

He was one of the best WWF guys in his era. That's what most people grew up on. I'm not sure there's really more to it than that. I'm not even saying that in a critical way.

[Matt D]

He was one of the best WWF guys in his era. That's what most people grew up on. I'm not sure there's really more to it than that. I'm not even saying that in a critical way.

Was he?

Top five? You've been going through the sets. Is he a top five guy for 1990? Is he better than Tenta? Than Bossman? Than Barbarian or Haku? Than Michaels/Jannetty? Or Tito?

 

On what criteria?

[Loss]

Meaning that most WWF wrestlers were plodding and not very athletically gifted. Hennig was and it made him stand out, which is a positive. It's not like late 80s/early 90s WWF is a beacon of good work anyway, so it's neither a huge compliment nor a huge insult. But he was probably the best athlete on the roster at certain points and easily the most willing bumper. He was also really good at getting the crowd to hang on to his nearfalls. Those are all positives.

[Loss]

I don't know if he's top five for 1990, but coming up with five good in-ring performances in 1990 is a challenge, much less a top five workers list.

[tomk]

"Mainstream fan" is just my way of saying "non-hardcore" fan, or possibly even just "WWF/E fan".

 

It's not hard to find this sort of fan because they are absolutely everywhere and their view is the dominant one reflected in the available wrestling media.

 

Do a little google search for "best wrestlers ever"

 

Take a look at this: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-...all-time?page=3

So "mainstream fan" is a guy who started watching wrestling in about 1990 and has some vague awareness of historical figures and foreign (Japanese) wrestlers.

 

A guy on the same site ( a mainstream movie viewer) has a list of top 50 movies of all time:

 

http://www.ign.com/blogs/lionharte/2012/03...ies-of-all-time

 

1.The Shawshank Redemption 2.Star Wars: Episode 5 The Empire Strikes Back 3.Inception 4.Se7en 5.Leon 6.The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 7.Lord of the Rings: Two Towers 8.Memento 9.Silence of the Lambs 10.Pulp Fiction 11.Godfather 12.Godfather 2 13.The Dark Knight 14.Taxi Driver 15.Clockwork Orange 16.Back to the Future 17.Gladiator 18.Forrest Gump 19.One Flew over the cuckoo's nest 20.The Matrix 21.Psycho 22.The Shining 23.Full Metal Jacket 24.Raging Bull 25.Scarface 26.The Lion King 27.The Sixth Sense 28.Platoon 29.12 Angry Men 30.Fight Club 31.Goodfellas 32.American History X 33.Alien 34.American Beauty 35.The Departed 36.Trainspotting 37.Apocolypse Now 38.Saving Private Ryan 39.Terminator 2 40.The Usual Suspects 41.Requiem for a Dream 42.The Green Mile 43.Vertigo 44.Citizen Kane 45.It's a wonderful life 46.Once upon a time in the west 47.Seven Samurai 48.Spirited Away 49.Sunset Boulevard 50.Raiders of the Lost Ark

The movie list writer bunches 47) Seven Samurai and 48.Spirited Away while the wrestling list writer puts some filler inbetween 41) Muta and 46)Inoki. Movie list writer has Leon:The Proffesional at #5 while wrestling list writer has Andre Rousimoff at #13, But overall very similar lists in construction.

 

IGn also did a readers poll where aggregate was used to determine readers top 20 wrestlers of all time, I think its safe to say that the readers poll results skew younger than the IGN writer:

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/13/rea...ers-of-all-time

 

20.Cena

19.Foley

18.Edge

17.Eddie Guerrero

16.Chris Benoit

15.Goldberg

14. Sting

13.Triple H

12.CM Punk

11. Randy Savage

10.Angle

9.Hogan

8.Chris Jericho

7. Ric Flair

6. Jeff Hardy

5.Bret Hart

4.Undertaker

3.Steve Austin

2.Rock

1.Shawn Michaels

This list skews younger and I doubt Perfect made the top 25.

Lists of mainstream casual wrestling fans skew toward stuff they saw or are nosatalgic for plus a vague awareness of historical figures. Pretty much that's what lists of mainstream casual movie fans will give you, casual tv fans, casual music fans, etc.

 

People who casually watched Us wrestling at the beginning of the 90s are going to remember the longest reigning IC champion of the 90s.

That should come as a surprise to no one.

[Matt D]

Was he even Longest reigning? There wasn't a hell of a lot of time between when he won it in april or may (or at least when it was televised) and Summerslam. Then he chased Tornado for the rest of the year til he got it back in December. He had the one big match with Bossman at Mania and then he loses it the following Summerslam. I loved Perfect as a kid and when I actually rewatched this stuff, it amazed me how little he actually had the belt. He just happened to have it during my key time as a kid viewer.

[JerryvonKramer]

No argument from me tomk, 100% agreed. You've outed a little nuance of such list construction there. The token nodding to things they think is important in the back half of the list. This probably isn't the thread to talk about it though.

 

"Mainstream", "casual", "non-hardcore", semantics. I think Dylan's question has been soundly answered.

[tomk]

So I just made up "longest reigning" cause it sounded right and couldn't think of anyone else that seemed to hold it as long.

But according to Wikipedia I'm right.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_I...ental_Champions

 

280 days.

 

For longest combined reigns in the 90s Razor Ramon beats him, and Michaels equals him.

But straight up longest reign in 90s, it's Mr Perfect.

[JerryvonKramer]

The one small thing I would say though tomk is that such lists aren't entirely arbitrary. Certain stuff gains a rep for being good. Shawshank for example has a rep of being a good film.

 

It's not like people remember any old films and stick them on these lists. Ghostbusters 2 doesn't routinely make such lists for example.

 

It's not just that "people remember Perfect", it's that "they remember him and think he was good". Or that he has a rep as being good. The mainstream fan does have some level of discernment.

[Matt D]

Michaels FEELS longer to me since it's just the Jannetty 1-2 week gap breaking up his runs there, but yeah, ok. The numbers do not lie.

[BrickHithouse]

File this under "who cares". I took a poll here at work, 19 non-fans, and asked them for the first person they think of when they think of pro wrestling. These answers almost perfectly give away their general ages and locales:

 

John Cena - 2

Hulk Hogan - 9

"Big Daddy" Shirley Crabtree - 2

"Bulldog" Bob Brown - 6

 

This is not made up.

[jackwebb]

Do a little google search for "best wrestlers ever"

 

Take a look at this: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/11/02/top-...all-time?page=3

 

Curt Hennig is ranked above Lou Thesz, Terry Funk and Jerry Lawler.

That list isn't that bad compared to a lot of others you could find. I am at a point now that I am fine with those kind of lists as long as they don't have Lance Storm on them. You really want to pull your hair out do a google search like you suggested but search for best wrestlers ever Lance Storm. Here is something I read before paraphrased. "Lance Storm is one of the best wrestlers ever. Yeah he was boring. However he was booked as a boring heel and he mastered the role." They actually were serious.

[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.

 

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

 

I don't really think he was "weak" but I just was not that interested in the majority of his singles matches. And I felt like in the tags with his dad, Larry really overshadowed him with how much he could connect with the crowd and the charisma he had as a babyface. It's weird to say that since he's in my #1 match and the 1 hour draw will be somewhere in the top 10, but the rest of the stuff I look back at my notes and just see "middle of the pack" or "boring." The idea before the AWA set came out was the it would make people see Hennig as one of the very best in the world during the time period. I didn't walk away feeling that way.