Thoughts on some of the DVDVR matches

[Resident Evil]

I've seen everything now. I tried typing out my list to deathvalley via e-mail last night but the computer screwed up and I lost my whole list so now I'm going to have to type the whole thing out again.

 

Adonis vs Backland from 1/82 ended up being my favourite. JBA vs the Glamour Girls was second and Dynamite vs Bret was 3rd.

 

The Macho Man stole the show for me as a lot of his matches truly felt special. Moreso than the rest of the wrestlers on the card. The big match feel is what I'm trying to say. I loved the matches against Santana, Hogan (Mania) and Steamboat from Maple Leaf Gardens. For some reason just like when I was 13 years old the Mania match didn't hit home for me. Still good though.

 

I didn't like the MSG Boot Camp match as much as others especially after watching their previous match at MSG which I liked more since I thought the Sarge was in more trouble. Still very good though.

 

Escape rules for cages generally suck.

 

Can not figure out why deathvalley are going bonkers over Valentine vs Garvin. Good bout but I don't see where the epicness is coming from. I do remember really liking their submission match back in the day though so I'd like to go back and see that.

 

The Islanders vs Strike Force was done to total forumula perfection for the WWF tag style at the time. Great match and I hope it ranks up high when it's all said and done.

 

Steamboat vs Valentine rocked.

 

Garvin vs Mr. Perfect from 12/89 was worked as well as any match on the discs. It just won't get to the top because it wasn't worked as an epic contest.

 

The Rougeau Brothers theme music is terrific.

 

Too many matches were on the discs that shouldn't have been on there.

 

Andre vs Kahn is underrated

 

Steamboat vs Roberts from Boston was easily the best of their series of matches on the disc. Lots of fun, interesting work that keeps you intrigued.

[goodhelmet]

I have devised a color code system to keep track of the matches.

 

If I feel a match is a great match, I place it in the green zone.

 

If I enjoy the hell out of a match but don't know if it truly worthy of a top 20 spot, I place it in the light green zone.

 

I have seen quite a few matches that don't offend me but are nothing special. These are your middle-of-the-road matches that I tagged orange.

 

Then there are the clipped to hell matches that prevent me from truly evaluating the true worth of the match. These get tagged light red.

 

Then I have matches that I think flat out suck or are overrated that I am upset better matches were overlooked. These are tagged dark red.

 

Eventually, I will have an idea of where all of the matches will go. The last 20 or so will probably be interchangeable and be in no particular order. The middle of the road matches will probably get looked over but I'll try and place them the best I can. The really good matches might get a reviewing if I want to re-evaluate their position. The top 20 will def. get repeated viewings. Hell, I have already watched the boot camp match 4 times and still have problems knowing where it will place in my Top 5.

[Loss]

I'm just putting them in order as I go.

[Loss]

04/07/86 - British Bulldogs v Greg Valentine & Brutus Beefcake

Maybe it's just because I've seen so many great tag matches, but I was totally disappointed here. I like the power spots from the Bulldogs, but strangely enough, it feels like Beefcake is the one holding up the heel side, and there's only so much he can do. Valentine just drags this down with convoluted spots that he's obviously getting in for the sole purpose of overselling or looking stupid. The ending wasn't built well at all and came across as a fluke. This will be the toward the bottom of my list.

[Loss]

03/29/87 - Randy Savage v Ricky Steamboat

I've made my thoughts on this match known many times, but I decided to watch it again. First of all, it's funny that they're wrestling at such a fast pace that the ref gets blown up, but it's not funny when it starts fucking up the false finishes -- there are two nearfalls where he counts three by mistake, the crowd pops thinking the match is over and then it restarts. That's not the only time the ref is out of position for a spot, as Savage reverses Steamboat's rollup by pulling the tights in plain sight of the ref, who looks right at it and just keeps going. I also don't like that Savage is the moral victor here, despite being the heel, as he covers Steamboat with the ref knocked down and succumbs to outside interference from Steele. As far as the wrestling, it's nice, but they don't really do that good of a job putting over even the best stuff. Steamboat does more than Savage -- his bump to the floor is really awesome and I felt like Steamboat was the one carrying this. His body language, selling and bumping are all top notch. He was a total angel but I don't feel like Savage held up his part as a total devil, so the match didn't feel as epic as it should in front of 78,000+. Not only does the booking portray Savage as the screwed over babyface, but so do some of the spots in the match, like him getting caught in the ropes and having Steamboat illegally attack him. What makes that even worse is how out of place it is with the scientific aromassage style the rest of the match is wrestled in. If Steamboat can show some rage taking advantage of Savage being in a precarious position, then he can show some rage at the opening bell and not act like he's wrestling another babyface in a friendly encounter. The tie-ins to the feud, while not happening as often as they should, are nice when they are done -- the crowd shows that they want desperately to buy into Steamboat's struggle the one time Savage tries to go for the throat, but there's no follow-up. Ventura was absolutely right when he said that Savage should have rested his throat on the guardrail and tried the double axehandle. Nice to know I wasn't the only one who thought that spot would have been a given. The stuff with Steele is really good, since he's been in love with Elizabeth for a year going into this, and I don't mind him taking the bell away from Savage, but I feel like Savage should have done something more dastardly before that. Just anti-climatic all around for what was a heated feud. Clips of the buildup prior to the match show Steamboat having to be restrained. Where is that here? This match in Memphis would have had Steamboat wrestling in a neckbrace, but this is the WWF, and they don't always do things to the full level they should. I'll go ***1/2 for the good stuff, but there's really no reason this couldn't have been much better.

[Loss]

04/02/89 - Hulk Hogan v Randy Savage

This is probably going to be in the top 10 or 15 on my list. Just a terrific performance from both guys, especially Savage, as he's much better with an opponent who wrestles at a slower pace. He was such a tremendous heel here. Hogan showed some surprising wrestling moves early on, teased comebacks at just the right times and finished the match off at the right time as well. This would have been better without Liz around at all, but to their credit, they did throw her out of the building. I dug Jesse Ventura on commentary as well. **** or so, no question.

[goodhelmet]

I wish SNKT had not gone down because I could not disagree with you more about the last two matches.

[Loss]

What does SNKT have to do with that? I know you put reviews there, but feel free to post your thoughts as you're going through the discs, or even now if you remember them.

 

09/14/85 - Bret Hart v Dynamite Kid

I expected this to be a lot better than it was. I didn't expect much crowd heat, and that turned out to be a correct assumption, but I thought that maybe they'd build a match and engage more people as the match wore on. They didn't really do anything like that. I liked Dynamite here -- great bumps, really fluid work. Bret was still pretty raw at this point and it showed. Then again, six months later he had a really strong match with Steamboat, so maybe Steamboat was the better worker compared to Dynamite Kid, at least in terms of laying out a match and at least in 1985. Peak-to-peak, I have no idea. Anyway, what probably hurt this as much as anything was that they were working toward the finish and whatever caused the pinfall wasn't shown because the producers were backtracking and showing clips from earlier in the match. Dynamite's flying kneedrop is probably an all-time favorite highspot for me now, though.

 

03/08/86 - Ricky Steamboat v Bret Hart

Excellent match, even better than I was expecting based on my memory. I remember not liking this too much the first time I watched it, but this just shows what a second viewing can accomplish sometimes. This is the closest to Hansen/Destroyer I imagine I'll see on the discs, in terms of a young guy challenging a more established guy. In that direction, they almost go too far overboard making Bret look strong, considering their positions on the card at the time. Bret getting the pinfall with the ref knocked out was probably a spot Steamboat devised because he wanted to give Bret an out, but considering there was never going to be any follow-up on this, it's really wasted here. Besides that, they do a great job of giving Steamboat the advantage at the right times and Bret the advantage at the right times. Steamboat's triple-counter to Bret is an outstanding little sequence, and later on, Steamboat lets his guard down and Bret kicks him in the face off the ropes, which turns the tide in his favor. Steamboat yelling "SHUT UP!!!!!" at Jimmy Hart is great comedy too. This will probably be in the top half, but I'm not sure where. ***3/4

[goodhelmet]

What does SNKT have to do with that? I know you put reviews there, but feel free to post your thoughts as you're going through the discs, or even now if you remember them.

Because I posted my thoughts less than a year ago on every supposedly worthwhile Wrestlemania match at SNKT, I really didn't feel like doing it again. However, for a match that was hailed as the best WWF match of the 80s, The Savage-Steamboat affair has held up remarkably well, IMO and the Savage-Hogan match was a Savage carry-job tha was nearly ruined by Hogan's hokey routine.

[Loss]

Hogan's routine can get hokey at times, but that's Hulk Hogan. A Hogan match would be disappointing and wrong if he didn't do his trademark stuff, especially in a Wrestlemania main event. They do a good job of working it all in here where it doesn't seem put on or too silly. He's not as embarrassing here as he has been in plenty of other matches -- he has some really good power spots, tossing Savage over the top rope and shrugging him off early to establish the match in that direction. He does some chain wrestling early on. He sells the throat injury from Savage in fantastic style. Comparing that match, which met every possible expectation set before it, to Savage/Steamboat, which didn't, just seems wrong to me. I also much prefer Savage in this match to that match. He's far more ruthless against Hogan than Steamboat, zoning in on Hogan's blood, choking him with his wrist tape and throwing Elizabeth in front of him to show what a coward he really is on a level playing field. None of that was there for Savage/Steamboat. I think this is the best performance of Hogan's career and the best match he's ever had. That could change as I go through these DVDs, but I suspect it won't, as I'm thinking Hogan/Backlund will be all about Backlund and the other matches with Savage and Orton probably won't be quite on the same level. I could be wrong, though.

[goodhelmet]

I think it is Randy Savage's greatest carry job. I think I said as much in my review but the match suffers because of Hogan's participation. I also cannot agree with your assessment that since people expect Hogan to be hokey that it is ok. It may make the crowd cheer, it may be "fun", but it doesn't make the match better.

 

Comparing that match, which met every possible expectation set before it, to Savage/Steamboat, which didn't, just seems wrong to me.

 

Not only did it meet expectations, it far exceeded them. Maybe it didn't meet your expectations because you didn't experience it live or were too young to understand what was going on at the time. That isn't an insult esp. since every Japanese match I watch, I could only rely on a modern perspective and wasn't there. Maybe you did watch it live. However, These two stole the show in the biggest event in wrestling history at the time. Steamboat played his role to perfection. Savage played his. While Steele's interference may be annoying, it was absolutely just desserts for those of us who saw Steele fawn over Elizabeth as Savage abused her time and again.

 

When I saw this match in 1999, it was the first time I had seen it in 12 years. I was shocked at how much I still liked the match. about every year and a half I have revisited the match and it still holds up. While I am being exposed to new matches and excited over discovering more, I can't really accurately compare them fairly to this match because this match has stood the test of time like few other WWF matches have. The staying power has been amazing.

[Loss]

I think it is Randy Savage's greatest carry job. I think I said as much in my review but the match suffers because of Hogan's participation. I also cannot agree with your assessment that since people expect Hogan to be hokey that it is ok. It may make the crowd cheer, it may be "fun", but it doesn't make the match better.

They have to satisfy the kids in the audience that want to see the Hulk up, the big boot and the legdrop. If Hogan isn't Hogan in a match but someone else entirely, then that's going to drag the match down more than anything else. It's not that doing that stuff makes it better, it's that not doing it would make the match worse and all wrong. Maybe you can explain what hokeyness you're specifically talking about.

 

As for Savage/Steamboat, yes I saw it live and yes it was cool at the time to see Steele stand up for himself. It doesn't change the fact that Savage is the heel and shouldn't lose because of a ref bump and outside interference. I don't like how "danced" and rehearsed this match is, either. Steamboat has said they wrestled this match around the horn 100 times before WM 3, step by step. I have a problem with that, because there are times when improvising a little may have made the match better. Again, that's a weakness on Savage. Savage was not at the level he needed to be here, and it was his idea to do the match step by step anyway.

[Loss]

09/01/84 - Tito Santana v Paul Orndorff

I have very little to say about this. It was one of the most perfectly average matches I've ever seen. St. Louis crowds are always fun, though, and man, are they electric here!

 

07/20/85 - Ricky Steamboat v Bob Orton

Ditto here. I think this match was just getting good when it ended though, and as a result, this probably isn't as good as Tito/Orndorff.

[goodhelmet]

Hogan's blatant no selling, kicking out of the elbows, the puffy face and hulking up routine. you said it yourself... it was for the kids and it is expected, just like a Flair flop or running on the apron to get press slammed off the top. However, if a particular match does not call for those things then there is absolutely no reason to do them.

 

As for being rehearsed and by the numbers, I could say the exact same thing about Warrior-Savage but you would defend that match to the ends of the earth. However, when watching it, I know it was rehearsed NOW but I certainly had no idea when the match was going on. If you are going to criticize this particular match for being rehearsed then you should be prepared to do that for nearly every Savage match in existence. Hell, I thought the Hogan-Savage match looked much more choreographed than anything in the Steamboat match save the George Steele interference.

[Loss]

You'll be seeing a lot of criticism of Savage while I'm watching these matches, believe me. You'll also be seeing lots of praise.

 

The fact that the match was rehearsed isn't as much of the problem as it is that the match is *obviously* rehearsed. If you want to continue to defend Savage/Steamboat, more power to you, but I've watched that match probably 100 times or more in the past 18 years and my mind ain't changing. I fail to see what specifically makes the match hold up well at all, and it's barely on the same planet as Savage/Warrior.

 

You can't fault a wrestling match for aiming to please its audience. This match, and every Hogan match, calls for him to do those things. It's part of the mythology surrounding him and Wrestlemania; it's what people expect, and they'd be disappointed if they didn't get it. All wrestlers have trademark spots; those are Hogan's. I'm not using that stuff to defend the quality of the match, but I'm not going to call the match a bad one solely because of that either. It's those things that will always keep Hogan from having a ***** classic. The right opponent with the right ideas in mind, however, can reign him in, organize things to where they get the most out of them when they do happen and still have a great match with him. This is proof of that. This match is made by Savage, yes, but Hogan more than holds up his own end of the deal.

 

As for the specific flaws you listed ...

 

Hogan only no-sells when he starts making his comeback. If I was going to say this match had some flaws, I'd call that one of them. There's no other point in the match where he no-sells anything, and in fact, he sells everything in great fashion. Watch him do the Steamboat style throat grabbing when Savage goes after his throat and watch him slowly crumble to his feet when Savage chokes him out.

 

Kicking out of the elbow is an admitted flaw if you think it's excessive. On an MSG or Boston house show, I'd say it was excessive. On the big stage like Wrestlemania, it's not excessive at all, because it's Wrestlemania, and thus it's all about reaching deeper and having to go further. That's a clear, consistent theme with Wrestlemania main events -- Hogan/Bundy, Hogan/Savage, Hogan/Slaughter, Savage/Flair, Bret/Yoko, Austin/Michaels, every Austin/Rock match, Shawn/Diesel, Bret/Shawn ... in every single one of those matches, the winner took the loser's finisher, survived it and still came back for the win.

 

The puffy face? Come on. That's what babyface comebacks are.

 

Flair does indeed do the Flair Flop in almost every big match and it is indeed annoying. Flair has also had dozens of great matches in his career. Call it a flaw, but I have a problem with suggesting that the entirety of the match is a wash because of one spot. Yes, it keeps the match from being perfect, but it's hardly enough to keep it from being great.

[goodhelmet]

The fact that the match was rehearsed isn't as much of the problem as it is that the match is *obviously* rehearsed.

As was Hogan-Savage and Savage-Warrior, moreso than Steamboat-Savage. It is only mentioned because Steamboat, who is known for NOT planning out matches, mentioned it whenever asked about it, yet he still continues to call the Savage matches some of the best of his career.

 

If you want to continue to defend Savage/Steamboat, more power to you,

I will and there will be more to come when I sit down and watch it again.

 

I've watched that match probably 100 times or more in the past 18 years and my mind ain't changing. I fail to see what specifically makes the match hold up well at all, and it's barely on the same planet as Savage/Warrior.

You're right. It isnt on the same planet. The Steamboat match is much better.

 

You can't fault a wrestling match for aiming to please its audience.

Absolutely, you can. This is like saying that everyone in your audience enjoys the same things. I am not even worried about winners and losers. I am specifically referencing the match itself. If someone is no-selling Macho Man elbows, the way we criticize Angle for popping up after Rolling Germans or Ric Flair forgetting to sell the knee after a figure four then we put them through the ringers... Wrestlemania or not. It kills the suspension of disbeleif when we were lead to believe that the move is a killer sure-fire way of ending the match. I had the same problem with Warrior-Savage that I have with Savage-Hogan.

 

All wrestlers have trademark spots; those are Hogan's. I'm not using that stuff to defend the quality of the match, but I'm not going to call the match a bad one solely because of that either.

I didn't say it was actively bad but I have seen too many **** matches to believe that this one can stand with the best matches I have seen. It is merely adequate. As for the Steamboat-Savage match, I wouldnt call it **** or ***** either BUT that has more to do with what is surrounding it in the WWF than what the match actually is. The WM3 match does not match up favorably against Jumbo-Funk, Misawa-Kawada, JOe-Punk, etc. However, when I see a star rating that suggests that Hogan-Savage is as good as any other **** match I have sene, I simply do not believe it. It is like me viewing Bret-Owen and calling it ***** and then revisiting it 5 years later and realize that it is a very good match that cannot compete with the best matches that have happened. Maybe I have more of a problem with your star ratings than your feelings with the match.

 

Bell rang... will finish up shortly.

[Loss]

Here's what I don't understand. You say the problem is with the rating, but then you start comparing it to Misawa/Kawada, Joe/Punk, etc. There is no comparison, and I'll agree with you there. Maybe, instead of listing the best matches you've ever seen as a reference, you should mention matches that are closer to **** than ***** in quality. Of course, that's hard to do when you don't rate matches, but then again, I don't understand how you can call someone else out on a bad star rating when you've admitted that you don't even grasp the way star ratings work.

[Loss]

11/14/81 - Andre the Giant v Killer Khan

This is the worst match I've seen so far on this set. This is at the very bottom of my list and will probably stay there. I'm not even sure why this is included. This match looks faker than anything on this set and I've seen much better elsewhere from both guys.

[Loss]

04/21/85 - Ricky Steamboat & Tito Santana v Dream Team

Kind of an ordinary tag match, but they followed the tag formula about as well as one could hope, and I really dug the Steamboat/Santana tag team. I wish there was more doubleteam stuff from both sides, because I didn't really feel like either team wrestled as a team. Valentine and Beefcake just don't click for me thus far. Still *** or so, but not as good as it sounds on paper.

[goodhelmet]

Here's what I don't understand. You say the problem is with the rating, but then you start comparing it to Misawa/Kawada, Joe/Punk, etc. There is no comparison, and I'll agree with you there. Maybe, instead of listing the best matches you've ever seen as a reference, you should mention matches that are closer to **** than ***** in quality. Of course, that's hard to do when you don't rate matches, but then again, I don't understand how you can call someone else out on a bad star rating when you've admitted that you don't even grasp the way star ratings work.

What do you mean I don't understand how star ratings work??? Of course I do. Because I choose not to attach a star rating to a match it means I can't question someone else's rating? Of course I can. If Misawa-Kawada is a bonafide ***** match then on a comparitive scale, there is no way Hogan-Savage matches up with the true **** matches out there. It is why we BOTH question Meltzer giving the last TNA main event *****. It is why we both jump on the attack when people praise the over-hyped Kurt Angle match and are quick to point out the flaws. It is also why we are capable of praising a Slaughter-Sheik match, a JBL match or a Duggan match because these guys are historically known as bad workers but we can overlook popular opinion and evaluate matches on their own merits. We can also admit when a Chris Benoit or (gasp~!) a Ricky Steamboat match sucks. We can and do evaluate matches based on merit and not on some star rating

 

 

When you give Warrior-Savage ****1/2 then you would hold it up against any other ****1/2 match... not just ****1/2 WWF matches. On your list, you have it right smack dab in the middle of a bunch of great matches from different promotions. However, when someone disagrees on the worth of a match then it can and will be questioned and evaluated. I know in my heart of hearts that Warrior-Savage is inferior to the best ****1/2 Misawa/Kobashi/Kawada matches. I choose not to rate matches according to 1/4 stars because I think it is frivolous but when someone does put those star ratings out there then they should receive scrutiny. However, I think I am capable, even though you would have a hard time admitting it publicly, of properly evaluating a match on its own merits without resorting to star ratings to support my opinions. I like the fact that you use star ratings. It makes debates like this much easier to know where you stand on a particular subject. I know that you think Steamboat-Hart is better than JBL-Taker because your star ratings indicate it. However, I think sometimes that you can only see so many *** matches that after awhile it becomes pointless to label them as such. If a star rating was mandatory for every single match we reviewed, why do you only bother to give ratings to *** and above? Why do you choose to omit your ratings from certain forums when posting your thoughts on the matches? If the star is what matters, then shouldn't it be done for all matches?

 

So, ultimately when we complete ranking these matches, does every match have to have a star rating? No. But when they are put out there for the world to see, it raises a flag when the words describing the match don't match the action on the screen. Hell, if not for Tim, I don't know if I would have ever seen JBL-Eddie. In Tim's assessment, he had no star rating or list of where it stood compare to other great matches but I think it was clear enough that his evaluation made it hard to dispute its greatness. I could have taken SK's wword that it was a match that was watchable because it had blood and little else. You've had dozens of matches in your list that I agree 100% with you yet I disagree with you on 3 matches so I don't grasp the way star ratings work? Give me a break.

[Loss]

What do you mean I don't understand how star ratings work??? Of course I do.

You've said you don't understand the difference between a ****1/4 and a ****1/2 match before. I said that not because of anything you've said in a post that has made me come to that conclusion, but because you yourself have said it.

 

Because I choose not to attach a star rating to a match it means I can't question someone else's rating? Of course I can.

If you're not willing to put your own rating out there, I don't think you *should* debate star ratings. It's not a matter of whether or not you have the right to. I hate to use this term because it sounds harsher than I mean it ... but I think it's intellectually dishonest to point to flaws in something someone else says without explaining how you came to your own conclusion.

 

If Misawa-Kawada is a bonafide ***** match then on a comparitive scale, there is no way Hogan-Savage matches up with the true **** matches out there.

How did you get from Point A to Point B there? I sure don't understand it. How much of a gap between **** and ***** do you think there is? I asked you to name some matches you consider around **** and you didn't, so what am I supposed to do? Again, you're comparing Misawa/Kawada to Hogan/Savage. That's YOU making that comparison, not me. I never put them on the same level. I didn't call Hogan/Savage *****.

 

It is why we BOTH question Meltzer giving the last TNA main event *****.

I DID NOT GIVE THIS MATCH *****. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. I AM NOT COMPARING HOGAN VERSUS SAVAGE TO MISAWA VERSUS KAWADA.

 

It is why we both jump on the attack when people praise the over-hyped Kurt Angle match and are quick to point out the flaws. It is also why we are capable of praising a Slaughter-Sheik match, a JBL match or a Duggan match because these guys are historically known as bad workers but we can overlook popular opinion and evaluate matches on their own merits. We can also admit when a Chris Benoit or (gasp~!) a Ricky Steamboat match sucks. We can and do evaluate matches based on merit and not on some star rating

The rating is a footnote, not an explanation. I only use them because they're a good quick reference. You choose not to use them. That's why I don't understand why you're quick to criticize others who do.

 

When you give Warrior-Savage ****1/2 then you would hold it up against any other ****1/2 match... not just ****1/2 WWF matches.

Yes.

 

On your list, you have it right smack dab in the middle of a bunch of great matches from different promotions. However, when someone disagrees on the worth of a match then it can and will be questioned and evaluated. I know in my heart of hearts that Warrior-Savage is inferior to the best ****1/2 Misawa/Kobashi/Kawada matches.

Why are you involving Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi in this when I haven't mentioned them? Yes, I see the point you're making, but even then, there are great US matches that are better than some M/K/K matches. I think Savage/Warrior from Wrestlemania VII smokes Misawa/Kawada from 10/21/92. It's hard to debate this with you when you're throwing out names and not matches. And when you do throw out matches, you repeatedly only name matches you think are ***** and thus at the top of the heap. Again, I feel like it's back to square one, where I don't know where you find middle ground between Matches That Are All-Time Classics and Matches That Suck. There are matches in between. Thousands of them. Hogan/Savage happens to be one of them.

 

I choose not to rate matches according to 1/4 stars because I think it is frivolous but when someone does put those star ratings out there then they should receive scrutiny.

Agreed. The fact that you're disagreeing is not the issue here. The fact that you're disagreeing and not making proper analogies is where I take issue.

 

However, I think I am capable, even though you would have a hard time admitting it publicly, of properly evaluating a match on its own merits without resorting to star ratings to support my opinions.

I can admit publicly that you know what you're talking about. I'll do so right now. I don't disagree that a bunch of snowflakes are meaningless without some explanation attached. I've never denied that. But you're making it about the *'s instead of refuting specific points I made about both matches. That's silly.

 

I like the fact that you use star ratings. It makes debates like this much easier to know where you stand on a particular subject. I know that you think Steamboat-Hart is better than JBL-Taker because your star ratings indicate it. However, I think sometimes that you can only see so many *** matches that after awhile it becomes pointless to label them as such. If a star rating was mandatory for every single match we reviewed, why do you only bother to give ratings to *** and above?

I never said it was mandatory. I just said that if you're going to criticize others for theirs, you should be willing to come back with your own. That's an ethical thing. If you were disagreeing with my words, I wouldn't even be bringing up the star ratings. But you're not. You're disagreeing with the snowflakes only, and when you won't provide your own, that's simply unfair.

 

Why do you choose to omit your ratings from certain forums when posting your thoughts on the matches? If the star is what matters, then shouldn't it be done for all matches?

Why are you so anxious to call me out every time you think something I say doesn't fall in line with something you believe? Again, you're making it about the stars, not me. I never said the star is what's important. You're the one who did that when you said you were not disagreeing with my thoughts on Hogan/Savage, but rather only the star rating.

 

So, ultimately when we complete ranking these matches, does every match have to have a star rating? No. But when they are put out there for the world to see, it raises a flag when the words describing the match don't match the action on the screen.

It does. It also doesn't apply to anything I've said in this thread.

 

Hell, if not for Tim, I don't know if I would have ever seen JBL-Eddie. In Tim's assessment, he had no star rating or list of where it stood compare to other great matches but I think it was clear enough that his evaluation made it hard to dispute its greatness. I could have taken SK's wword that it was a match that was watchable because it had blood and little else. You've had dozens of matches in your list that I agree 100% with you yet I disagree with you on 3 matches so I don't grasp the way star ratings work? Give me a break.

Pay attention to your own words. That's the only reason I even mentioned it.

[goodhelmet]

You've said you don't understand the difference between a ****1/4 and a ****1/2 match before. I said that not because of anything you've said in a post that has made me come to that conclusion, but because you yourself have said it.

I dont think that fine of a line can be drawn. However, I can clearly say I enjoy match X more than I enjoy match Y. However, when you rate them with stars, it makes it easier to see what match you like best. We did it in a previous thread with 12/6/96 and 6/9/95. We argued what was the better ***** match. NO star ratings needed.

 

 

If you're not willing to put your own rating out there, I don't think you *should* debate star ratings. It's not a matter of whether or not you have the right to. I hate to use this term because it sounds harsher than I mean it ... but I think it's intellectually dishonest to point to flaws in something someone else says without explaining how you came to your own conclusion.

I'm not arguing your star ratings except to compare them to your other star ratings, or in the above mentioned example, your ranking. I have several match reviews in the match review folder that I think put over the merits of a match without having to resort to star ratings. Nothing intellectually dishonest about it. You can tell by my words which matches I think are great or have problems and it would be easy for me to list them from top to bottom without using star ratings.

 

 

How did you get from Point A to Point B there? I sure don't understand it. How much of a gap between **** and ***** do you think there is?

Really, after watching hundreds of NWA squashes, it makes you appreciate the really good matches that much more. However, if you define a **** match as a great match then you should be critical of what gets labelled as a GREAT match. Why have a match at ***3/4? Probably because it is lacking a particular element that makes it great.

 

 

I asked you to name some matches you consider around **** and you didn't, so what am I supposed to do?

I must have overlooked this.

 

 

Again, you're comparing Misawa/Kawada to Hogan/Savage. That's YOU making that comparison, not me. I never put them on the same level. I didn't call Hogan/Savage *****

I DID NOT GIVE THIS MATCH *****. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. I AM NOT COMPARING HOGAN VERSUS SAVAGE TO MISAWA VERSUS KAWADA.

No, you gave both of them star ratings and labelled them as great matches. Of course, with the star rating, you are comparing the two. I never ever said you thought they were equal or that you gave them both *****, only that you put both in high standing. I question the Warrior-Savage even more so because I think that is an absolutely dreadful match but you hold it in high esteem. Once again, with the star ratings, it makes it easier for me to dispute you by referring to your own ratings compared to other ratings you have made, not with my own particular star rating.

 

The rating is a footnote, not an explanation. I only use them because they're a good quick reference. You choose not to use them. That's why I don't understand why you're quick to criticize others who do.

I addressed this above.

 

Why are you involving Misawa, Kawada and Kobashi in this when I haven't mentioned them? Yes, I see the point you're making, but even then, there are great US matches that are better than some M/K/K matches. I think Savage/Warrior from Wrestlemania VII smokes Misawa/Kawada from 10/21/92. It's hard to debate this with you when you're throwing out names and not matches.

 

I'll give youdates next time. You see the point I was making but it's hard to debate? I'll admit I was generalizing but I thought you knew me well enough to understand what I was saying. I'll be more clear next time.

 

And when you do throw out matches, you repeatedly only name matches you think are ***** and thus at the top of the heap. Again, I feel like it's back to square one, where I don't know where you find middle ground between Matches That Are All-Time Classics and Matches That Suck. There are matches in between. Thousands of them. Hogan/Savage happens to be one of them.

 

Ok, Eddy-JBL, Duggan-DiBiase, Slaughter-Sheik, MX vs. Fans 3-26-88.

 

I would venture to say all of these are around the **** range for me. You chose to rate them higher but we both agree they are great matches. The only real objection or voice of discontent is on three matches where are views are widespread.... Stemaboat-Savage, Hogan-Savage, Warrior-Savage. That's it. However, I would rank two of those matches closer to matches that suck, for shits and giggles ** tops, and you have them hovering around ****. It's no different than you calling JBL-Eddie ****1/2 and SK calling it ** or whatever he said it was. The big difference is that I continually question SK's or Meltzer's "wacky" ratings yet I have only questioned 3 of yours. And once upon a time, we had a big Warrior-Savage debate thread that is lost and I don't want to relive it.

 

 

I've never denied that. But you're making it about the *'s instead of refuting specific points I made about both matches. That's silly.

Not really. Only because if their is something you see as completely out-of-whack then you are going to question it. In this case, it is the Savage matches. I agree with you that the first 20 matches on your list are great matches. Then I keep chugging along and see some "abnormalities" that don't jive with my opinion or are in the same ballpark. Of course I am going to question the star rating.

 

 

Agreed. The fact that you're disagreeing is not the issue here. The fact that you're disagreeing and not making proper analogies is where I take issue.

I guess this is talking about Hogan-Savage to Misawa-Kawada which I already covered above.

 

 

I can admit publicly that you know what you're talking about. I'll do so right now. I don't disagree that a bunch of snowflakes are meaningless without some explanation attached.

I never said it was mandatory. I just said that if you're going to criticize others for theirs, you should be willing to come back with your own. That's an ethical thing. If you were disagreeing with my words, I wouldn't even be bringing up the star ratings. But you're not. You're disagreeing with the snowflakes only, and when you won't provide your own, that's simply unfair.

Once again, it was only a comparison of one of your star ratings compared to another one of your star ratings.

 

 

Why are you so anxious to call me out every time you think something I say doesn't fall in line with something you believe?

Maybe you haven't noticed but this isn't exactly a busy forum and you and I just happen to be the most active participants. If it seems like I am "anxious" to call you out, it might be because there isn't too much debate going on. If you are talking about some other matters, please enlighten me.

 

 

Again, you're making it about the stars, not me. I never said the star is what's important. You're the one who did that when you said you were not disagreeing with my thoughts on Hogan/Savage, but rather only the star rating.

In relation to your other star ratings, yes.

 

 

Pay attention to your own words. That's the only reason I even mentioned it.

I guess this has to do with me claiming I don't know what makes the difference between a ****1/4 and ****1/2 match. Once again, it was only a comparison of your star rating in relation to your other star ratings... of which you have 200+. It's really easy for me to see JBL-Eddie at the same level as Warrior-Savage and want to question it. Or see Baba-Destroyer above the 6-3-94 and raise an eyebrow because no one has ever made tthat assertion before.

[Loss]

Well, I need to rewatch 6/3/94 to know where I stand on that, but I don't have it ranked here, because I don't know how I compare it to the other tag matches from the era. As for the rest, I think we were arguing semantics and I understand what you were saying now.

[goodhelmet]

6/9/95 is what I meant. I usually generalize with 6/3/94 because I have never read of anyone who knows the history leading up to the match not call it a *****. Same thing with 6-9-95 or 12-6-96.

[Loss]

07/22/88 - Randy Savage v Ted DiBiase -- CAGE MATCH

This wasn't quite as good as I remembered it being, but I still liked it. Virgil's interference pissed me off, not because it took away from the match, but because it was worked in so well. Savage getting the win had to happen with that build, and it did. DiBiase is just a terrific bumper and carried this match. This is another case of Savage not being at his best when working with someone at his level. Still, ***1/4 match.