Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Stan Hansen


Grimmas

Recommended Posts

That's fair, but I do think it says something that even Taue or Akiyama (in my view) had better matches on average with Hansen than Misawa. I thought the Hansen matches put Misawa over really well and were in no way bad, but were missing something in the end, even the 8/92 and 5/93 bouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought Elliott post was very good, but my take away was that while Hansen probably did what he should have, you could find around 50 other wrestlers who worked in AJPW tag matches in the 80s that would have made that match better if they were in there instead of him, and that's how I feel about most of his many, many tags in that company in that decade. To me, that says something. Maybe I should be hating the game or whatever, but there are tag matches that I DO like from AJPW in the 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went back and watched some of the Brody tags, because I couldn't help myself. I see where Matt's coming from, and I wouldn't even try to argue him out of his view. But I still found Hansen compelling to watch, even in matches that didn't amount to much. Stan approached every outing with the philosophy of "If you want an inch from me, you're going to have to take it." When he was in with guys who could deal with that--the Funks, Jumbo, Baba--the matches carried an incredible sense of moment-to-moment competition. Because Hansen would never, ever just lie down and accept a control section. If he sold, it was because his opponent had done something worthy. And his offense was so violent and organic feeling. It was a knife's edge deal, and he did end up guzzling plenty of opponent's and falling into some mindless slugfests. But he was just an awesome storm of a wrestler.

 

Though I agree the older Hansen, who either wouldn't or couldn't eat opponents alive, was better, I remain a fan of the whole show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem I have with the AJPW tags in general is often being unable to find a narrative throughline. In many, the action can be very good (not necessarily Brody matches here) and there's a competitive sense of struggle, absolutely, but I can't add it all up into any greater whole. I wonder if that's something that you handle better than I do because you're more tuned in to sports than I am. Still, I think any specific game has its own implicit story that you can draw out of it. I should probably be able to find that in these tags, but wrestling isn't real. It's artificial and the fact that so many of these tags don't have a finish specifically means that they don't really have to build anything. So you have extremely believable moments but ones that don't come together into a greater whole. Sometimes you do, of course, but a lot of times you don't.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does make sense, and I agree that was a weakness of those matches, especially in the early-mid '80s. But yeah, I think I'm more likely than you to get sucked up in the moment-to-moment intensity and walk away saying, "Well, at least the match had that." I respond to Hansen because most wrestlers, even good ones, aren't particularly adept at creating that sense of just eating up another man's space. It really helps with the verisimilitude.

 

Actually, Bock was good at it when it fit the match. But Hansen probably adopted it as an ethos more than any wrestler ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man was that Taue match good. For a man the size of Hansen to sell that well was phenomenal. The thing that impressed me most was his comeback. One of my least favourite things in wrestling is when a guy takes a beating for what seems like an eternity and then the comeback starts and all of a sudden it's even stevens. The way Hansen worked his way back into the match here was as believable as it gets. He was basically like a wounded animal fighting and clawing his way out, Taue was fabulous as well. He could've easily oversold it, but instead he sold it just right, weathering the storm and not letting his opportunity to topple Hansen slip. Taue was on point in this bout. The opening exchange took me aback. What a great start to the bout. Almost like sumo brawling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramble time. I have a lot to say. Some of this is going to be about how Hansen is presented and broad discussions of the All Japan House style and the expectations for Hansen based on the role he was in. I think it is all important stuff even if some of it will be a bit dry and a lot of it will be “yeah we know this already” for some people. But I think it is all important stuff to know when it comes to Hansen and why he wrestled the way he wrestled because we all agree Hansen was more giving in AWA, PR, and the 90s.

 

I would say that more so than any other promotion, All Japan was deeply concerned with hierarchy and card placement. Higher ranked wrestlers almost always beat lower ranked wrestlers. Baba would draw things out for years and years with guys slowly growing up and developing over time. All Japan didn’t really run storylines in the way wrestling fans traditionally think of so they primarily used ringwork as a way to show who wrestlers are and where they are in their career.

 

For example, if all you told me was there was a match between Hansen and Ted vs Bock and Curt in All Japan from December 1985 and it lasted 10 minutes, I could tell you a few things before even watching the match.

 

It will be a countout/DQ or if there is a pin/submission, Hansen and Ted will win and Curt will eat the fall.

 

Why do I know these things?

 

Countout/DQ: It is early-mid 80s All Japan so its always safe to assume a countout or dq.

Hansen/Ted Victory if by pin/submission: Hansen and Dibiase were the top ranked All Japan Gaijin of 1985. Bock and Curt weren’t really a regular tag team in All Japan and it being December, I know its tag league season. So Bock and Curt were brought in to fill out the tag league. They’re the sort of team that exists so teams like Hansen and Dibiase can win by pinfall and accrue points.

Curt will eat the fall: All Japan would frequently pair youngsters up with veterans. The young guys will almost always get pinned so the veteran can lose but stay protected.

 

I could have told you all of that before ever watching the match. I could even tell you how I expected them to work the match before watching it.

 

I hate to use terms like “Sports build” and “realism” when it comes to any wrestling company but Baba really tried to book AJ as though it were a sport. Upsets are rare and it takes years and years for the athletes to reach their prime. Not every wrestler in a generation is going to be Michael Jordan or LeBron James. One guy will become the ace or MVP, one or two guys will challenge the Ace and push either help push the Ace to greater heights in defeat or even get the occasional (though rare) win. Most guys will be good professionals but not able to challenge the Ace.

 

We all know hierarchy/card placement is important in All Japan and Baba was a very patient/planning long term booker. Shit he was probably (definitely?) the most patient booker ever. Well the way the patient booker goes about creating the hierarchy of his promotion based on “realism” is that higher ranked wrestlers beat lower ranked wrestlers over and over and over again for years and years even as the faces change. Kenta Kobashi lost something like 86 matches in a row to start his career. Kobashi was considered a future star as a rookie because he was already so good but Baba had him lose over and over and over again. Not only did this make sense in a real world practical standpoint (keep the young guy humble [not really a problem with young kobashi but fuck it dude I’m rolling]) but it makes sense from a kayfabe standpoint (rookies don’t just walk in and beat guys with years of experience in this promotion).

 

The average (nothing special) All Japan match is really just going to be there to reinforce the hierarchy and the “characters” (maybe “characteristics” would be a better term for All Japan) with the work in the ring. For this match it would be Hansen is a beast, Dibiase is a lesser Hansen, Bock is an aging vet but still has some shit left in the tank, Curt is an exciting youngster who isn’t really ready to hang with the Hansen’s of the world. Hansen will have an easy time with Bock and Curt. Dibiase will have an easy time with Curt while working more evenly with Bock. Dibiase will do most of the bumping for his time, Curt will eat the fall. The “narrative” in this promotion between those two teams is going to be top gaijin team vs veteran & kid in the tag league for 10 minutes. Was it a great match? No. But it was what you would expect to happen with those 4 based on that narrative structure and based on how those guys worked/where they were in their careers in All Japan.

 

Before we talk about why Hansen worked the way he did we should first clarify Hansen’s role in All Japan and his presentation within the company.

 

Hansen was the top gaijin in 80s All Japan. He was the hardest pushed foreigner over the course of the decade from the moment he jumped from New Japan. In New Japan, Hansen had a long running feud against Inoki and even managed to beat the fucker. He was able to go toe to toe with Andre and even body slammed him. Think about that. Not in terms of how fucking awesome that match is and how much we all love it now. Think about it in terms of presentation and character. Here’s this guy and he’s literally charging at heel Andre the Giant. He’s arm dragging and body slamming freaking Andre. So Hansen is considered a serious bad ass motherfucker and is treated as such. You think the guy that charged at Andre the Giant is going to be the slightest bit impressed by Curt Hennig in 1985?

 

Over the course of the 80s, Hansen was the biggest and hardest pushed gaijin in All Japan. Consider that Hansen:

 

Was in the main event or semi-main event of every Sumo Hall or Budokan Hall show in the 80s.

Won 4 Tag Leagues from 82-89 and tied for first in another. Finished 2nd or tied for 2nd every other year in the 80s.

 

Going into the 90s:

 

Hansen was in the main event or semi main event of EVERY Budokan card he appeared on from 1985 until July 1994. Seriously. Every one.

He finished 2nd or tied for 2nd in every Tag League from 90-94. He won one last tag league in 1998 and finished 2nd in 99.

He lost to Jumbo in the finals of the 91 Champions Carnival (AJ didn’t run the carnival from 1982 until 1991) and then beat Misawa to win the next two.

He had 4 runs as Triple Crown Champion. 2 more than any other gaijin. Hansen held the belt for a total of 505 days. The next closest gaijin was Vader’s 2 reigns for 177 days.

 

So the presentation of Hansen from the moment he started in All Japan until sometime around 1994ish was as a literal top of the card star. He’s a guy that beat Inoki, Baba, Jumbo, and Misawa. How many people in the history of Japan can say that? I’m genuinely curious about that because I suspect no one. Hansen wasn’t just a star, he was a star capable of beating the absolute top tier natives.

 

More to consider.

 

As I said Hansen was the biggest gaijin star/hardest pushed over the course of the 80s on average. I’ll definitely concede that at certain points others like Andre, Hogan, Terry Funk, etc were bigger stars or pushed harder. But Hansen worked many more tours than Hogan and Andre who were more special attraction types in Japan for the bulk of the 80s. Funk by the 80s was a beloved babyface so his role was completely different from Hansen’s.

 

We typically think of Hansen as a “Monster Heel Gaijin.” At least I know I usually do but I’m not sure what to do with the word monster. It works for Andre because he’s enormous. It works for Abdullah because Abdullah is a literal monster. Even Hogan when he worked heel could be called a monster because he was essentially a 6foot tall muscle with an irregular heart beat. Stan Hansen is much more humanized to me. I mean, he's a big loud tough as shit redneck cowboy. I’ve met basically that exact guy in real life a dozen times. In Japan? Being a giant swearing, tobacco chewing, screaming, lariating Texan is probably a type of monster. Hansen certainly wrestles like a monster. So I feel it is fair to consider him one. He isn’t a monster because he’s Godzilla (Andre) or a Roid Freak (Hogan) or Abdullah, he’s a monster because he’s the biggest and toughest Texan American.

 

So, thinking about all of this and how it fits together in terms of the GOAT Poll. Hansen is the top gaijin in Japan for the 80s and is a presented as a major star capable of beating the top native stars. Hansen wasn’t a part time attraction or world champ coming in for a title defense. He was a guy who worked in the country regularly and his status as a monster is based more on (and I know Matt is gonna hate this word) toughness than being a freakshow. For Hansen to maintain his status as a monster while regularly working in company that focused on hierarchy and be over and credible to the point that Hansen working against Baba/Jumbo/Tenryu/Misawa was credible for years and years…Hansen HAD to eat certain guys alive. We can hate it and say it led to what we would call bad matches. But for what All Japan was going for, Hansen had to beat the shit out of lower ranked opponents. And if you pick random matches from his prime against guys not named Baba, Tenryu, Jumbo, Choshu, Funk, you’re probably going to see Hansen kicking the living shit out of a guy.

 

We know when Hansen worked in AWA and PR that he was willing to sell more and work a more giving style. We know based on his 90s work in Japan that he was actually a wonderful seller and just perfect as the aging gunslinger. Shit we know that when working underdog babyface for the first and only time ever against Andre he was amazing Ricky Morton. So I think its fair to say that Hansen understood exactly how he needed to work in 80s All Japan.

 

Hansen is actually kind of an interesting candidate because of all of this really. He’s the ultimate big picture candidate. Hansen worked in All Japan from his prime through his twilight years for the slowest and most patient booker. Not a lot change in All Japan unless things forced them to change. One of the constants in the 80s was Stan Hansen is going to destroy a motherfucker. As the decade turned and Hansen went from an athlete in his prime to an athlete nearing the end, he adjusted accordingly. He managed to do this while at the same time adding things to stay relevant. Hansen wasn’t doing topes and powerbombs in 1983 but he sure as shit was on occasion in 1993. I would recommend watching everything from Hansen for sure but I would always point to the series of matches against Kobashi from 1990-1996. You see Hansen age from in his prime to twilight against a great worker moving up from virtual rookie to world champion. Each match is different and shows both the quick growth of Kobashi and slow/inevitable decline of Stan Hansen. I feel like you can see a great variety and nuance in an otherwise pretty limiting wrestling character/promotion from Hansen in that series of matches while also allowing that they are appealing because they tend to be great matches.

 

But we all keep trying to move past “Great match Theory” and part of the way we do that is by looking at and analyzing performances. If Hansen was more giving to someone like Curt Hennig in 1985 All Japan it would be a bad performance based on what Stan meant to the promotion at that time, where he was in his career and what Curt meant and where he was at the time. But 6 months later in AWA in totally different circumstances, Hansen works against Hennig and is much more giving and willing to bump around and make Curt look like a million bucks. Whether we think one match was great and the other wasn’t is incidental. What is important is that Hansen treated Curt differently in All Japan in 12/85 than he did in AWA on 5/86.

 

Because of his style as a wild brawler, Hansen is often labeled a one trick pony (albeit often described as the greatest one trick pony ever but still) I really think this sells Hansen’s brilliance short. He knew exactly how to work based on his opponent and promotional expectations. I described him as a big picture candidate earlier. I think if you pick a random match like the tag with Bock and Curt and analyze it based on our expectations for good work without considering the context of promotional needs/positioning it is easy to label a perfectly acceptable performance a bad one. This is the problem with analysis without contextual considerations. If you take a step back and consider promotional style, positioning, etc Hansen’s run is really quite remarkable in terms of understanding what was expected of him and wrestling accordingly. Because Hansen was in his prime in 80s All Japan and was positioned so strongly you’ll see a litany of matches where he eats a lower ranked opponent alive. It wasn’t because he was a selfish or bad worker. It is because that is how a wrestler in Japan in Hansen’s position needed to wrestle. That he wrestled differently during the same period elsewhere illustrates my point.

 

In a way I look at Stan Hansen as the ultimate “Mark Henry” style of great worker. In terms of understanding his character in relationship to his push, the promotion, and his personal style of wrestling, Hansen is the perfect example of being a great wrestler by understanding his role and never wrestling outside of himself.

 

A while back Matt and I were chatting about Hansen via pm and I made a point that I’ve thought about ever since. Hansen is the greatest wrestler ever who’s ability to have a great match is most dependent on who he is wrestling. Hansen has an impressive list of great matches against opponents including Inoki, Andre, Hogan, Vader, Baba, Tenryu,, Colon, Martel, Hennig, Kawada, Kobashi, Taue, Terry Funk, Backlund etc etc. It is a pretty versatile list of workers but if you look closely and think about it Hansen’s best matches came against two types of wrestlers:

1. Aces/Major Stars (Baba, Inoki, Colon, Hogan, Backlund)

2. Great Workers (Kawada/Kobashi/Funk/Taue)

 

Dawhoe has a great little post here describing Hansen’s stated working philosophy.

http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/19196-stan-hansen/?p=5690217

 

For those that don’t want to click the link

“Hansen has said that the way he wrestled was he would go at guys and see how they reacted, then wrestle accordingly. I always appreciate that about Hansen, he doesn't necessarily have one or two structures he likes, he wrestles everybody different because everyone reacts different when he goes at them.”

 

When Hansen was wrestling an Ace like Inoki, Baba, or Colon or a major star like Hogan or Andre, he knew he had to be giving and work a more even match. He wasn’t stupid. Sure you can say “he knew who was paying the checks.” Ok. But when you’re brought in to work a feud with Carlos Colon or you’re wrestling Antonio Inoki, you know you aren’t going to win the feud before you sign the contract. Same thing if you’re wrestling Hogan and Andre. You aren’t going to steamroll Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant.

 

But beyond an Ace or Major Star, Hansen’s “go at guys and see how they react” style isn’t really predisposed to have “great matches” against anything but great workers. Part of being a great wrestler is being confident in your abilities and be able to think on your feet. If you’re a skinny new comer in your 2nd year and freaking Stan Hansen is coming at you, you’re probably going to freeze and get eaten alive. But if its 1986 All Japan and you’re in your 2nd year, you should expect to get destroyed by Stan Hansen. That’s how the promotion works. But if you’re 1983 Terry Funk and you’re maybe the best working veteran underdog babyface ever or you’re 1993 Kenta Kobashi and you’re maybe the best working up and coming babyface ever and you’re strong and confident in your abilities, Stan Hansen’s “go at you and see how you react style” is perfect for making magic.

 

The AWA match against baby Vader really throws a wrench into my theory. But like the Andre match in a different way, the Leon White match shows Hansen’s ability to be utterly brilliant working a different sort of match than the typical Stan Hansen match. And really I think the “only has great matches against aces and great workers” because of his style criticism really only applies to Japan.

 

I think the All Japan 80s promotional philosophy in terms of hierarchy combined with Hansen’s push/working style definitely led to a lot of matches like Stan/Ted vs Bock/Hennig. But focusing just on the things that happen in a match like that is missing the broader picture for what Hansen was trying to accomplish.

 

It makes me think of the old story about JJ Dillon wrestling a match for the first time in years and wanting to really impress the boys. Instead of going out and getting his butt kicked and stooging, JJ went out and dominated showcasing a wide array of offensive moves to impress the boys. When he went to the back after the match expecting to be praised for his abilities he was scolded because he “isn’t supposed to wrestle like that.” Hansen would NEVER have fallen into a trap like that. He had a deep understanding of what he needed to accomplish and wrestled accordingly based on his opponent. We might say “this match would have been better if he wrestled it differently and gave more offense to 1988 Kodo Fuyuki (as a random ass example).” But the real question is SHOULD he have given more offense to 1988 Kodo Fuyuki.

 

I would say that Hansen probably benefits for me from “expectation bias.” I love hearing about guys growing up in the 80s and reading about Brody in PWI, seeing the entrance for the first time and then the match falling flat because it turns out that Brody is actually a complete fraud. Hansen had the same sort of presentation as an out of control ass kicker type but then he followed it up by delivering in the ring. I, obviously, really like Hansen and his style really works for me. I think his “I just go at guys and see how they react” is a really unique and interesting approach to wrestling. It forces you to think on your feet and forces you to truly work for and earn the offense you get in on this overbearing cowboy. Again I hate to use the word “realistic” so I’ll say it makes Hansen matches feel more organic and natural.

 

I’m not trying to say people have to love Hansen and his style or rank him #1 or consider him for #1. I guess I wanted to address the criticism against him for “eating guys alive” and discuss why I can look beyond that in certain matches in 80s All Japan. And then I went crazy. But I do think there was logic behind it that actually enhances his case if you want to move past “Great match Theory” and start thinking about performance based on his role, opponent and promotional expectation. This was too long. I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Really excellent post from elliott.

 

Two things I'd add are: 1. Backlund matches demonstrate him "giving" even more than PR or AWA material. 2. He gives plenty in AJPW, especially when helping to "make" a guy. Kawada match from 93 would by the go-to example. He still went over but the fact he almost had to kill himself to beat Kawada puts Kawada over huge too. Things like that are only possible because of the logical consistency of what elliott described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stan Hansen is much more humanized to me.

That's a very excellent point, which always needs to be emphasized when discussing Hansen in Japan. Aside from the Funks, Stan was seen much more as a person than any of the other long-term gaijin guest-stars. He went to Japan early enough in his career that fans saw him when he was still a rookie, they watched him grow and evolve over time. His first match there was being squashed by The Destroyer; he made such an unimpressive, "I'm a heel so I've gotta be a wimpy chickenshit" showing in that AJPW bout that they didn't bring him back afterwards. When he got to New Japan a few years later, he was protected but not super-protected; his matches were mostly DQ and CO "wins" over the top natives there. Compare this to Hogan and Andre, who were given generous pinfalls over most of the biggest Japanese wrestlers at the time.

 

Stan's only truly monstrous period was when he was a top tag wrestler in the 80s, the period where he teamed with Brody and directly afterwards. Stan had obviously started listening to Bruiser when it came to dealing with promoters and insisting on finishes (witness his tenure as AWA champion) and had generally bought into the Kevin Sullivan philosophy of "no matter what else happens out there, brutha, I'm gonna get over". It wasn't until after Brody died and Hansen was deep into his singles feuds against Jumbo and Tenryu in the late 80s that he finally realized "oh holy shit, I can sell my big ass off and even lose and I'll still get over huge, because I've been here so long and worked so hard that the audience loves me no matter what". Even when he still acted heelish in the early 90s, he didn't receive heel heat from the crowd; they popped for him as if he was a beloved native.

 

Between that and having a whole new roster of young stars who needed to be put over by aging legends, Hansen obviously realized that he could show much more vulnerability and ultimately put on stronger showings by acting more like a man and less like a monster. (You rarely if ever saw opponents in the 80s trying the "work the lariat arm" strategy which became so common for Hansen's 90s matches, probably because he wouldn't have spent much effort actually selling that kind of thing in his early days.) The fact that Stan turned out to be such a great seller in his later years of course helped a lot. The difference between him and too many other would-be brawling superstars was that Stan knew he had to take a beating, and had to sell that beating Steamboat-stylez all the way out to the cheap seats. He telegraphs "I'm in pain! Oh God, I'm in such pain!" in those 90s bouts to an extent which would've been completely unthinkable to 80s Stan. Add that to doing many more jobs (he'd still beat the midcarders, but lose more often than not to all the Four Pillars in the second half of the 90s) and while Stan might've still been portrayed as a destructive force, he was also portrayed as an all-too-human old man who was increasingly capable of having bad nights and being the lesser competitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elliott, I still have big issues with him along the lines of creative collaboration and the simple fact that at various points I actively hate the role that he's playing so well, but you made a great defense of the fact that he was playing that role in the first place, and while he won't end up in my top twenty, he will do very well in this project overall, and I'm more than fine with that at this juncture.

 

That said, I think there's a danger in defending roles so thoroughly. A guy who does the right thing for the matches he's in, for the crowd that he's in front of, executed very well? Sounds like Davey Richards to me. A guy who has a following who is financially successful in his role, at least on a minor level. One's based in hardnosed closing of opportunities. The other's based on frenetic opening of them without restraint. Both fit the desires of the crowd they're in front of. When it comes to that defense, where's the line other than the fact you personally prefer the role of one to the role of another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elliott, I still have big issues with him along the lines of creative collaboration and the simple fact that at various points I actively hate the role that he's playing so well, but you made a great defense of the fact that he was playing that role in the first place, and while he won't end up in my top twenty, he will do very well in this project overall, and I'm more than fine with that at this juncture.

 

That said, I think there's a danger in defending roles so thoroughly. A guy who does the right thing for the matches he's in, for the crowd that he's in front of, executed very well? Sounds like Davey Richards to me. A guy who has a following who is financially successful in his role, at least on a minor level. One's based in hardnosed closing of opportunities. The other's based on frenetic opening of them without restraint. Both fit the desires of the crowd they're in front of. When it comes to that defense, where's the line other than the fact you personally prefer the role of one to the role of another?

This goes back to the long debate with Parv. At some point, there is no other line. You have to decide what you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elliott, I still have big issues with him along the lines of creative collaboration and the simple fact that at various points I actively hate the role that he's playing so well, but you made a great defense of the fact that he was playing that role in the first place, and while he won't end up in my top twenty, he will do very well in this project overall, and I'm more than fine with that at this juncture.

 

That said, I think there's a danger in defending roles so thoroughly. A guy who does the right thing for the matches he's in, for the crowd that he's in front of, executed very well? Sounds like Davey Richards to me. A guy who has a following who is financially successful in his role, at least on a minor level. One's based in hardnosed closing of opportunities. The other's based on frenetic opening of them without restraint. Both fit the desires of the crowd they're in front of. When it comes to that defense, where's the line other than the fact you personally prefer the role of one to the role of another?

 

What is Davey's character? Is it just "guy who has MOTYCs?" I'm asking because I legit don't know. Is Davey working for a very strict and patient booker who's intent is to build a very clear hierarchy in his promotion? If so, what is Davey's role in that hierarchy? How does he use his work to fit in that limiting hierarchy?

 

I'm also wondering if we shouldn't look at "great match theory" and we shouldn't praise guys working within themselves, understanding and "playing their role" then what sort of criteria should we be using for this poll?

 

In the end, yes, its all going to come down to personal preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's just preferences though. I think that's where I agree with Parv (though only half way, mind you). There are objective talents. That Hansen does what he does, and does it in a way no one else really manages to is impressive. The personal preference comes in how much we value that relative to other things. So we don't discard it. He's not going to be in my top twenty. He'll be somewhere outside of there, because my preferences lead me to both enjoy and value other elements of wrestling more, but I still respect what he does and have to account for what he does, and that means he'll be higher than a lot of wrestlers who do things I value more, but don't do them as well as what he does well.

 

They're preferences but they're weighted preferences. Where we have to take this on faith is that how we weigh things will be different from person to person. At the end of the day I think this process is more about examining ourselves and one another's opinions than the wrestling itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's just preferences though. I think that's where I agree with Parv (though only half way, mind you). There are objective talents. That Hansen does what he does, and does it in a way no one else really manages to is impressive. The personal preference comes in how much we value that relative to other things. So we don't discard it. He's not going to be in my top twenty. He'll be somewhere outside of there, because my preferences lead me to both enjoy and value other elements of wrestling more, but I still respect what he does and have to account for what he does, and that means he'll be higher than a lot of wrestlers who do things I value more, but don't do them as well as what he does well.

 

They're preferences but they're weighted preferences. Where we have to take this on faith is that how we weigh things will be different from person to person. At the end of the day I think this process is more about examining ourselves and one another's opinions than the wrestling itself.

That's all well put and similar to how I view the process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hansen's work improved as the house style changed. I don't think there's any way he could have worked the matches I've watched of late against Kawada or Taue a decade earlier. There wasn't the same focus on the moment-to-moment build as there was in the early 90s and not as much focus on selling and receiving damage. Hansen deserves a ton of credit for adapting to the changes in the company's style and excelling at the new match structure, but I think it was the change in style that prompted it more than a change in roles. I dunno if he was playing a different role in the 80s, or simply protecting his spot, but the focus ought to be on whether it was any good. A lot of his 80s work seems aimless to me. I think he makes poor decisions on a moment-to-moment basis and his character work borders on self-parody at times. I don't mind if he's guzzling opponents. It's the mechanics that bother me, specifically not being able to work over an opponent in an interesting way or crappy/predictable brawling on the outside. Things you wouldn't really associate with Hansen in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people said that the Kobashi/Hansen match the night before Hansen/Taue is better because Kobashi has better offense than Taue and his win over Hansen means more. They're totally different matches as the rib injury occurs literally halfway through the Kobashi bout whereas with the Taue match it's the focus right from the start. The Kobashi bout has a bigger feel to it with more of the back and forth beginning you'd expect from two guys who are healthy. Kobashi does have better offense than Taue and is a better athlete. What he's not as good at in this two match comparison is selling. He looks like some kind of string puppet the way he sells. He was trying to be dramatic, but it was awkward looking. Hansen sold his demise well, as you'd expect, but it wasn't a truly great match despite the crowd reaction, and the Taue match seemed cooler to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Taue match is a notch in his belt, but I'm glad he didn't work like that all the time. The match was good, but it wasn't very interesting to me in that it felt like a Doc-Gordy tag where everything you'd want on paper is there, but the match is just boring in spite of that. That Hansen was capable of that type of performance but it's atypical for him I consider a huge positive for him -- it shows he had a deep toolkit but made choices that made matches more fun and exciting to actually watch as opposed to something that's entirely an academic experience. That match felt like too much head and not enough heart for my tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was a WORKER. Big Horse who you'd wanna put out to stud and make other versions of to spread thru generations of rasslin. Pretty much the ultimate brawlin and bulldozin bad ass you can trust in to deliver an entertaining affair. He'll have an affair when it comes to whoopin your ass.

 

It will be a short affair but your ass will remember it.

 

THE BOAT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who took the walk with me, especially Elliott who wrote probably the most compelling defense of any wrestler I've seen in this process and Childs for being so damn reasonable.

 

I've come to appreciate him even If not particularly enjoy him. He won't be in my top ten but he will make my top 25 over dozens of wrestlers I like more because he's simply better than them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I liked the Taue/Hansen match so much, I decided to watch some of their other work. I enjoyed their 1992 Triple Crown match. It's a clear attempt at a back and forth title match, and by those standards it doesn't live up to other matches of its type, but as a Hansen/Taue match it's perfectly satisfying. I like watching Hansen match up with a legitimate heavyweight and again Taue brought an element of sumo brawling that I dug. Taue was probably a bit too limited to work the type of match Hansen laid out for him here, and at times it felt like Hansen was over compensating for Taue's lack of precision, but when they got the basic hoss stuff right it clicked. There was one clanger that threatened to wipe out everything they'd done when Taue botched a bulldog, but they got back on an even keel and Hansen put together a decent finishing sequence. Not a match I'd recommend unless you're interested in Taue/Hansen, but an interesting study case if you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...