Where the Big Boys Play #55

[JerryvonKramer]

 

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-b...een-havoc-1990/

 

Chad and Parv welcome back Solomon to watch Halloween Havoc 1990

- [02:59] Observer and Torch roundup, including: Family Feud, Jim Cornette's backstage heat, Jim Ross talks Mid-South on Torch Talk, Keller's "Booker for One Year" idea, the move to Central Stage and much more.

- [56:36] Halloween Havoc 90 review, including Tony Schiavone as the Phantom of the Opera, a sad farewell to the Midnight Express, Black Scorpion magic tricks and should heels win clean? Question(s) for the listeners *Sting special*: has any wrestler been "faked" more than Sting? Has any wrestler been tricked more than Sting? Can you think of a single match where Sting has carried someone?

- [2:39:18] End of the show awards and last show's responses to 'Question for the Listeners'.

 

The PWO-PTBN Podcast Network features great shows you can find right here at Place to Be Nation. By subscribing on iTunes or SoundCloud, you’ll have access to new episodes, bonus content, as well as a complete archive of: Where the Big Boys Play, Titans of Wrestling, Pro-Wrestling Super-Show, Good Will Wrestling, and Wrestling With the Past.

[Dylan Waco]

I will listen to this in a week when I have the time to take it in at once, but I'm interested to see if you guys love the Midnights fairwell as much as me

[soup23]

spoiler alert, we like it a lot but correct me if I am wrong but I think I heard you call that one of your favorite matches at one point?

[Dylan Waco]

It's one of my favorite matches that no one talks about. Really one of my favorite matches of all time, though by no means does that mean I think it's one of the best of all time.

[soup23]

Yep, agree with that. I find that match gets better every time I watch it.

[bradhindsight]

I would be interested to see where that Mx vs Rich/Morton match ranks on the best NWA/WCW PPV openers list. Gotta be in the top 3, right?

[thebrainfollower]

I did watch Superboy as a kid and remember Luger's appearance (and just got copies of seasons 2-4 and rewatched his appearance)

 

He plays an enhanced "Superboy" in a dream sequence who beats up Superboy, then reveals him to be a robot and blows him up while making time with Lana Lang. He's kind of a cocky jock heelish prick in that too.

 

His trunks were red btw.....oh wait wrong board.

 

Jerry's hatred of Scott Keith vaguely reminds me of history PHD's who rip apart their high school history teachers. It's valid as a criticism but really, who cares about Scott Keith anymore?

[PeteF3]

There have seemingly been as many Black Tigers as there have been Tiger Masks, and also a "Masked Tiger" in Michinoku Pro.

[Loss]

Is Havoc the first WCW show where we really saw the benefits of having the giant ramp for highspots? Eaton's leg drop from the top rope to the ramp is one of my favorite highspots of all time.

[JerryvonKramer]

Jerry's hatred of Scott Keith vaguely reminds me of history PHD's who rip apart their high school history teachers. It's valid as a criticism but really, who cares about Scott Keith anymore?

I don't hate Keith, in fact I've rather enjoyed his recent appearances on the Place to Be show. However, I think you are underselling his influence a little bit. No one really reads A.C. Bradley anymore, he arguably hasn't been relevent since the 1930s, and yet his spectre still haunts Shakespeare criticism to the extent where his take on Hamlet is still the default one. Anyone writing on Hamlet, even now, whether consciously or not, is in some way reacting to Bradley. On the show, we've always used Meltzer's ratings as our benchmark, but Chad and I often look to see what else people have said. It's become clear to me that very often the benchmark "out there" on the internet is not Meltzer's rating but Keith's. So often it's his rating that permeates all of the reviews of these shows out there.

 

People often (rightly) criticise Keith for his historicial inaccuracies. My problem, however, is that his match reviews are often lazily automatic and predictable. This is bothersome to us because you get these weird common places right across the internet. We try to analyse things in-depth on this show, and very often the common places we're battling have their source in Keith.

[Dylan Waco]

I actually know a lot of people in day-to-day life who are wrestling fans and follow the internet scene, though to do the degree anyone here does. I never hear anyone talk about Scott Keith. Ever. If anything I suspect people in our corner of the world inflate his "influence."

[soup23]

I really think the Steiners vs. Nasty boys rankings at the various sources minus Keller is one of the more perplexing ones we have seen. I'm not usually one to give a modern day hypothetically for a match but I can't fathom that exact match not being praised if it occurred in New Japan right now.

[soup23]

Is Havoc the first WCW show where we really saw the benefits of having the giant ramp for highspots? Eaton's leg drop from the top rope to the ramp is one of my favorite highspots of all time.

I can't recall it being put to this much use before. This show overall in a lot of ways represents the first show that felt like the WCW I was first acquainted with as a child.

[Matt D]

Jerry's hatred of Scott Keith vaguely reminds me of history PHD's who rip apart their high school history teachers. It's valid as a criticism but really, who cares about Scott Keith anymore?

I don't hate Keith, in fact I've rather enjoyed his recent appearances on the Place to Be show. However, I think you are underselling his influence a little bit. No one really reads A.C. Bradley anymore, he arguably hasn't been relevent since the 1930s, and yet his spectre still haunts Shakespeare criticism to the extent where his take on Hamlet is still the default one. Anyone writing on Hamlet, even now, whether consciously or not, is in some way reacting to Bradley. On the show, we've always used Meltzer's ratings as our benchmark, but Chad and I often look to see what else people have said. It's become clear to me that very often the benchmark "out there" on the internet is not Meltzer's rating but Keith's. So often it's his rating that permeates all of the reviews of these shows out there.

 

People often (rightly) criticise Keith for his historicial inaccuracies. My problem, however, is that his match reviews are often lazily automatic and predictable. This is bothersome to us because you get these weird common places right across the internet. We try to analyse things in-depth on this show, and very often the common places we're battling have their source in Keith.

 

There's no place for Keith in a post-Benoit world. He's like academia before Foucault! He doesn't represent the Cultural Turn or using Literary Theory for Textual Interpretation, let alone modern feminist examinations! The man is a dinosaur. He's still espousing positivist epistemology!

 

Man, I would have been so much happier in 1910.

[soup23]

I would be interested to see where that Mx vs Rich/Morton match ranks on the best NWA/WCW PPV openers list. Gotta be in the top 3, right?

Candidates off the top of my head:

 

Rey vs. Psychosis BatB 96

Pillman vs. Liger Superbrawl 2

Regal vs. Ultimo Slamboree 97

Ultimo vs. Rey WW3 96 (Never a match I was too crazy about but it has its fans)

Honestly maybe Vader vs. Duggan below that

 

That is all I got right now.

[bradhindsight]

Isn't Rey vs. Eddie for Havoc '97 considered the opener? I know some match listings have it third but I always assumed the first two were dark matches. I remember reading a lot how it was held up there with Bret/Owen and others as one of the best openers of all-time.

[cheapshot]

Dipped my toe into this on the way to work, and enjoyable so far as always.

 

I dislike the burying of Zenk though Parv!

[PeteF3]

Keith's name isn't invoked by itself as much as it was, his format and tone tends to be used in the vast majority of show reviews I ever read:

 

- Live from Anytown, USA.

 

- Your hosts are Gordon Solie & Don West.

 

- We open with a video package...

 

- Hiroshi Tanahashi vs. The Great Khali. Rote match play-by-play followed by a few token thoughts and a star rating. Standard Keith-ian jokes sprinkled in. **1/2.

 

Even if it's two or three times removed from the source, the style is unmistakable and it's still out there. And I agree that there's a tendency to rate matches before even watching them, just based on who the participants are.

[JerryvonKramer]

Dylan, my point is not so much that he's influenced fans in general, but specifically fans who do reviews on the internet. Chad and I cross-check reviews of these shows from many different sources: stuff the P2B guys have done, 411.com, Matt Pettycord, Adam Gutschmidt, Pegusus, all sorts of stuff that comes up on google searches. Some home truths:

 

1. The pool of people "out there" who have actually reviewed Halloween Havoc 90, for example, is quite small. You could count them on 2 hands. They are guys I could probably name. So I agree with you that the average fan out there is not name-checking Keith. But they might well watch this show and pull up a review of it and the REVIEW is what is Keith-influenced.

 

2. This small pool of people reviewing stuff aren't always terribly insightful or great at reviewing. Peter has identified a standard templated. I'm not suggesting for a second that WTBBP is the be all and end all of PPV reviews, but I do think we -- and PWO in general -- are a step "beyond" the typical wrestling show review / match analysis "out there". We break down matches. We look at structure. We do more than just say "Oh Earthquake is a fat guy. DUD" We account for 1% of 1%.

 

3. The small pool of people reviewing stuff all copy each other / copy Keith not just in their style but in their ratings. Take the opener here on Havoc 90. Chad brought up the the point that it was given ***1/2 pretty much across the board. He pulled out Hart Foundation matches that are routinely also given ***1/2 that are nowhere near that level. Something has gone wrong in the critical process by which that consensus comes to be. I'll tell you in a nutshell what it is: it's the guy doing the review checking Keith or another peer and ensuring he's always within 1/2 a star of that rating. I've seen this in review after review of show after show.

 

You end up with what are essentially self-generated myths. Flair vs. Garvin is a ** match? How? Why?

 

The Nasty Boys vs. Steiners match on this show. The Keith line is to think "oh hey it's the Nasty Boys, they are shitty workers, this match will be shitty, there's a cap on how good it can be. Let's make jokes about how shitty Knobbs and Saggs are.

 

Let me pull out Keith's review of that match.

 

- US tag team title match: The Steiner Brothers v. The Nasty Boys. This is one of those legendary matches that doesn’t really deserve it, but still made the career of the Nasties. These guys, in a nutshell, don’t like each other, and that’s all the people need to know. Mega-brawl to start. Sags gets Scott on the top for a superplex right out of the gate, but Scott reverses to a belly-to-belly for a big pop. Scott hits a tiger driver and the Steiners do the top rope bulldog for another mega-pop. Welcome to the spotfest. Knobs nails Scott with a chair for a two count to give the Nasties the advantage. Knobs with a powerslam for two. Sags with a pumphandle slam, and a gut wrench suplex for two. Knobs kills the flow with an ABDOMINAL STRETCH OF SEVERE HURT. Mike Rotundo must be flattered to have this kind of influence on the sport. Bearhug bores me further. Scott breaks with the belly-to-belly. Rick comes in without a tag and cleans house, but mises a charge and flies out of the ring. This allows the Nasties to spike piledrive Scott for two. Rick nails Sags with a chair while Knobs is escorted out, and Sags blades for the hell of it. Knobs goes back to the bearhug. Sags applies a Boston Crab, and Scott powers out of it. Knobs goes to the camel clutch, thus running the full gambit of the WORLD’S SHITTIEST RESTHOLDS. What is this, a Sid match? The Nasty clothesline misses and Scott gets the hot tag. Rick rips some heads off, and belly to bellies Knobs for two. The Nasties double-team Rick, but he manages a double top rope Steinerline that was only a *wee* bit contrived. The Nasties slam Scott on the floor and go back to working on Rick, but Scott pulls Sags out of the ring, and then rolls back in to finish Knobs with the Frankensteiner. Hmm, at the time I would’ve given you 10-1 that the Nasties would walk out with the belts, but the Steiners retain. The Nasties were instantly over because of this match, and since WCW is run by chimpanzees, they weren’t underlong-term contract and ended up becoming *WW F* tag champs mere months later. **3/4

This is a fucking disgrace of a review. The wild brawl at the start automatically becomes a "spotfest". Keith is complaining that there's too many high spots. In the next breath when the Nasties take it to the mat he's complaining about perfectly legitimate, focused work on Scott Steiner's injured back as "restholds". So he doesn't want high spots, and he doesn't want matwork. What does he want?

 

Why is the camel clutch a "shitty resthold"? In what way are the Nasty Boys aping the way Sid works? Or was he just trying to "get his shit in" as a reviewer? Why is the Steinerline in the hot finish criticised for contrivance? What does he want?

 

So a clear ****+ match, in Keith's hands, becomes a **3/4 disaster.

 

Now Matt Peddycord ... **3/4

 

Now Dark Pegasus ... ***1/4

 

Now mcc91 from the P2B board ... ***

 

Now some chap called "Scrooge McSuck" who doesn't give star ratings but not too subtely picks up on exactly the same criticisms as Keith: "Good brawl, but too slow at times, particularly the overly long bearhug spots."

 

And really, there aren't that many more HH90 reviews out there. That's pretty much "the field".

 

You see how things snow ball? You understand why I get frustrated?

[Loss]

Do you cross-check me? Just curious.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm pretty positive Chad has your entire body of work memorised off by heart Charles. And I'm only half kidding.

[Matt D]

When is Chad's book of my AWA reviews coming out?

 

I'm also annoyed you no-sold Foucault.

[bradhindsight]

Do you cross-check me? Just curious.

I couldn't find a star rating in your 1990 posts but did note in both of Chad and your Top 100 of 1990 lists you had the opener at:

 

Loss #74

Chad #51

[thebrainfollower]

In SK's defense I don't think the Nasties apply Camel Clutches all that well. They aren't as bad as Rick Rude or Scott Steiner but nowhere near as good as Iron Sheik's version.

 

I watched that match for the first time recently (yeah I know sad) and put it at 3.5 stars so I'm somewhere between you and Keith.

 

I think you may have a point but I'd argue the bigger problem is the star rating system. It's not the easiest thing to use and come up with completely new points of view on your own, so naturally you look to those that have gone before. And with old WCW stuff there aren't many that have, so SK wins via being one of the only players in town.

 

But even he admits he's not relevant anymore and just blasts Raw as a semi comic review.

 

 

Now where's Evil Jim Herd when we need him.

[shoe]

Good show guys. I'm with you guys on the Steiner/Nasty Boys match. I think I have it in the 4 1/4-41/2* range. A couple of years back they dropped by a local Indy show I was at. I had a beer with them and Saggs said he thought this was their best match of all time.