Andre the Giant

[Ricky Jackson]

Andre vs Big John Studd from 4/23/83 Cap Centre is the ultimate challenge. The whole card is on youtube, and also available in the Mystery Titans Theatre variation

[Matt D]

I would honestly rather not do Studd, because Andre apparently loathed the guy and I would believe that he would not just be lazy, but actually would attempt to tank the match. Studd is the one pass (and the only pass) I'd give him and even then, I'd give him some credit for knowing how to sabotage a guy, even if it's a mitigating factor at best. Him hating someone to the extent that he doesn't want to be professional with him is a pretty deep exception for something like this list in my eyes. You have my actual notes from the Mulligan match as I was watching it, which I think is as much proof as anything that I'm not actively cherry picking here.

 

That said, if you really want me to write it up, Kelly, I will. I made the offer after all.

[JerryvonKramer]

Any of the Hogan matches from 1980. And we saw Hulk could have a good match with someone to carry him in the Backlund match.

 

The Slaughter match was good but that's because Sarge was a maniac who threw himself all around the ring for Andre.

 

The Hangman from 4/4/81 was fucking brutal. Just awful stuff.

 

Moondog Rex 8/1/81 - crap

 

Killer Khan 11/14/82 - nowhere close to their Japan bout, not even same ball park

 

Enough shitty Andre to last you an afternoon there.

[Matt D]

I'm on the Studd road now. It won't change anything but you'll make me work for it at least.

[Matt D]

Notes (thoughts to follow):

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

-I have so many other more important things to do on my lunch break here. Even wrestling wise. Lucha write ups. NXT or Lucha underground watching. More WoS watching to pinpoint a few last guys, saying something about the Santo vs Dr. Cerebro match I finally saw last night. Figuring out if Miyako Matsumoto does that ridiculous ballerina pose in all of her matches. Finally watching that Evolve Zack Sabre Jr. Sami Callihan and whoever else tag match everyone loves from this year, etc. But here I am watching Studd vs Andre.

-Here goes. Pre match interviews. The Bodyslam challenge. The footage of Monsoon trying to do the challenge is great, by the way. I love Monsoon. He's the comfort food of announcers. Andre has a pretty blade-scarred head by this point. He was a couple of years older than I am at this point. Isn't that weird to think? He's ageless and timeless.

-Studd promo is pretty good actually. I like is robe too. No manager? Good for him for getting on the house mic too.

-Huge pop for Andre. i like the way they're shooting him from underneath in the entrance before going to the wide shot.

-Studd stalls to begin, which is funny when you think about it, a guy that size stalling, though I think Ladd did that sort of thing too, but not until he was old.

-Oh, good, it gives Andre a chance to get on the house mic too. They're trash talking already. Andre pushes him and the crowd loves it. I like this lead up. Studd out again. I'm into this so far. It means something when someone Studd's size stalls and the fact that Andre is starting to get affected by it matters too. It signifies something to the crowd.

-Now Studd's jawing with the fans and he's walking around the ring so slowly. I'm almost afraid for these two actually locking up because so long as they don't touch, this is good.

-Grat shot of a fan with a goatee being HELD BACK by the guy next to him, not even in a minor way, just all the way down under his armpit, holding him back. That's some heat.

-Alright, Studd's back in and slowly taking his robe off. He's driving the fans nuts here. I haven't had a chance to heard Mystery Titans Theater, but i can't imagine you guys hating this heat-seeking. He's just slowing wiping himself with a towel, doing everything as slowly as possible. This isn't laziness. It actually takes effort to move that slowly.

-Studd moves back into the corner, and Andre finally charges itn. Studd puts his hands up. Fans scream as Studd wants the clean break. And they lock up. Is it all downhill from here?

-Andre pushes him back into the corner. Studd stumbles back awkwardly into the corner and then does the hair pull claim with the ref.

-Andre has him in the "reverse double arm bar" and into the surfboard, before hitting the headbutt. He's holding Studd so he can't get away and driving his head into the spine. This makes total sense as the match has gone and is fine. Andre just wants to keep his hands on him and make him suffer. Studd, cowardly, just steps to the ropes and foreces the break. Fans boo and Andre pulls him back, because, really, what's the ref going to do. Fans pop.

-He's trying to power out instead. Andre's letting him get CLOSE to getting out, which is important in making Studd look like a threat, so good on Andre for doing that, but Andre stops it. Fans pop for that again. Studd makes it back in the corner, once again showing that in a fair fight, Andre's the real giant.

-Studd tries a cheap shot and Andre hits him for the first time(chop); the fans pop, and there goes Studd running over the top rope and selling. By doing so, he makes the chop matter all the more. Studd goes to the towel, stalls more, refuses to get in.

-Back to the "reverse double arm bar" Again. Andre's trying to keep studd from running.

-This time Studd tries to elbow out (not wrestling but striking), it works for a second but Andre starts to actively work over the arm.

He steps through with it and presses him down. Leveraging him down. They're not working this heavily. The step through was good. And Studd is shaking his head. This leads to Andre pressing down with it and locking in a Fujiwara. Andre switches it up nicely, dropping his body onto the arm. again. by doing so, however, he lets Studd get to the bottom rope.

-Studd's back out again. Ha. Fans boo like crazy. Studd sells the arm. Again, he's making what Andre just did matter all the more. What I'm worried about at this point is that they don't shift gears. it's really about time to do so. Studd may be able to lose the next exchange but he has to cheapshot his way on top soon.

-He came in and went over the top and got a headlock on. Turns it into a front facelock pretty quickly. he's churning it at least. Studd's yelling at the crowd. Ok my other worry is that they don't work in and out of things. I could have had a better transition, but I still half figure andre will get out of this one and they'll go around one more time, that this is just a tease. We'll see.

-Fans are chanting for Andre. He dropped to his knees. Studd's working it a little at least. Andre is kicking a bit. Trying to roll. he's not doing a lot, but he's also not staying static. He's responding to each of Studd's movements. Monsoon is good in introducing the idea that Studd could be choking him.

Andre's kicking sort of wildly here, mainly in response to Studd driving it. Studd goes for the pin. That wasn't a super compelling section but it wasn't all time terrible either. Studd kicks a few times and goes back to the front facelock. The idea is that Andre is supposed to move less and less as he starts to go out, but it's a matter of if he can portray that. I like that they went in and out of it at least. The fans start to respond and that wakes Studd up and he responds to them by driving in once more. As "cut off spots" go, it's not a spot, but it was still a right thing to do in that moment, to help justify the fans responding as they did.

-We see Andre's face and he's grimacing. He's trying to get his hand on the mat, but there's just not a lot here. This is no great heat segment by any means. Andre starts banging his foot. It's interesting to me that he didn't do this to try to get a clap going, but he does get the fans attention with it, as it make a noise each time, and after four of these or so, he reaches up over the top to mount a facelock of his own and the fans pop.

-they're both trying to get their feet up and drive into one another but I don't feel like the camera captures how titanic this stuggle is, just from their sheer size well.

-Now Andre's working this, slowly making it up. studd tried to turn it over but it did't work. Studd (again the weeaker giant) tried to go to the hair and the ref didn't let it happen and Andre gets him over as Studd writhes like crazy. Andre knees him in the back and the fans go nuts. Andre with the first real punches of the match. Two big right hands, and then Studd lifts him up and over the top. Puts the idea in that Studd could lift him! Studd grabs the towel, which is actually a great bit of payoff. And Andre wraps it around his head, headbutts him, and tears it into pieces and chokes him. Very fun bit of payoff to the stalling. Andre's just punching him (and they don't look great but they don't have to because of the fact all the guys come in and the ref is freaking out). Andre picks up Studd but everyone breaks it up.

So at the end of the match here, you have the idea that Studd can lift Andre up and over the top rope and that andre could have slammed him if people hadn't gotten in and broken it up.

[Matt D]

Thoughts:

 

Well, this was a match. The problems are obvious:

1. The transition wasn't devious enough. It wasn't craven enough. It didn't quite lead from the stalling well enough, though it did a little bit. You can make that connection, as Studd got over on Andre after escaping him a number of times and stalling/recovering, and he got over by attacking right on his way in and using his height. There should have been something more overt and blatant and underhanded.

2. The heat was one long front facelock which wasn't worked well as it came to hope spots and cutoffs. They rolled a bit. They were moving at least most of the time, working it somewhat, but not nearly enough. There was one point where the fans were really getting into it and Studd cut THEM off if not Andre, and that was good wrestling, but there just needed to be more of Andre trying to make it to his feet. They did enough that he didn't lose the fans, enough that I don't think it's a blight on wrestling by any means, but I don't think they did enough. It's interesting to me that what they did was still so effective despite it all. Some of that is definitely in the heat garnered by Studd's early stalling.

3. While I think the (As Monsoon put it) "reverse double arm bar" was actually quite effective when it came to what Andre was trying to do in the shine, namely to keep Studd in the center of the ring and control him so that he couldn't escape again, I would have liked to see something a little more visually dynamic, maybe Studd bumping into the corner a few times, for instance. I get why they kept the actual strikes to a minimum until the end, but there were other things they could have done to portray either Andre's anger, or his gleeful control of the situation.

 

That said, there were things I liked:

1. I loved Studd's early stalling. There's something about someone so big doing it so slowly. Like I said in my notes, it's not laziness in this case because it took him far more effort to move that slowly than if he had actually just moved at a normal speed. The jawing with the fans was especially great, and all the stuff with the towel.

2. The towel actually paying off in the finish. I'm a sucker for Chekhov's Gun, ESPECIALLY when I'm not expecting it. That took me by surprise.

3. Again, I think the "reverse double arm bars" are both a pro and a con here. I did like it that Andre's main goal in the shine was preventing Studd from escaping and stalling again. I thought the surfboard/strength stuff, while not elaborate by any means, was primal and effective in accomplishing what they were trying to portray (Studd IS strong, but despite his bluster, Andre is stronger. That's the entire point of their feud!) I think the stuff he was starting to do with the arm was fun too. I wish he had done a little more of that. Andre is so striking just in tossing his body at something.

4. I liked the moment of Andre wrapping his arm around Studd's head to counter the facelock and start the comeback. Yeah, sure, it was just a little thing, but the fans went nuts and for Andre? For the match they were working? I liked that more than a Hogan stand up and three elbows out sort of deal. I think the camera didn't properly catch Studd on his feet pushing into it as Andre pushed on his way back, and again, Studd going for the hair at the very end, an admittance (once more) that he just wasn't GIANT enough to deal with Andre, was perfect, especially because even THAT wasn't enough.

5. And the finish was perfect for what they were trying to do, putting, once again, the question of "Can Studd really pick him up?" into the fans' head with the fireman's carry over the top rope and following that with paying off the towel (which symbolically pays off all the stalling) and Andre lifting him which provides the fan with the answer that they already know, even if Studd gets to escape and live with his reputation (and money) for another day. Maybe NEXT time is the time Andre will finally get to do what we all know he can do now! Better buy that ticket!

 

So, were there bits of execution I would have been preferred to be better? Yes, absolutely, but this wasn't nearly as bad as you guys were making it out to be and I'm actually a little shocked that you didn't enjoy Studd's stalling early on.

[Ricky Jackson]

I was totally into the stalling. I'm actually a mark for a good stall. The body of the match was as dull as anything I've ever seen, with the dual front face lock something I imagine would've sent Dave Meltzer into an uncontrollable rage of anti-WWF criticism in 1983

[Matt D]

As noted, I really liked the duel facelock as a comeback, actually. It's the few minutes before that which were more of an issue, but I stand behind what I wrote up there.

 

I know what I'm getting with Andre. I get what you're saying. I'd much rather have occasional bits of that (and from what I've seen something so egregious, and it wasn't even all that egregious when I looked at it closely, is rarer than indicated) than the far more energetic and dynamic but utterly match-damaging stuff that Hansen was doing in those AJPW tags, for instance.

 

If that's the worst you can throw at me, I feel pretty okay with things.

[JerryvonKramer]

Matt probably deserves a proper response here, but I'm afraid I can't give him one beyond the fact that we all thought that match was shitty, and you could do pretty much exactly the same thing as Matt did with any Baron Scicluna or Chief Jay Strongbow match. In which case, it feels like an exercise in clever rhetoric and finding value in the terrible rather than an approach that can serve for evaluating wrestling matches. Which is to say, you can excuse pretty much anything if you try hard enough.

 

Maybe Matt will find himself to be a huge fan of late 70s WWWF. I can't see any reason why he wouldn't. And it'll be fun to see.

[JerryvonKramer]

I guess it is also worth noting that watching matches in the context of a whole card can have an effect on things too.

 

When you sit through miserable undercard matches just to even get to the Andre match only for it to be a let down, that can only compound it.

 

Which is to say there is a difference between pulling out that one match to look for positives and the experience of watching it after fifteen minutes of Jose Estrada vs The Hangman or whatever it was.

[Matt D]

  On 3/16/2016 at 3:38 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

I guess it is also worth noting that watching matches in the context of a whole card can have an effect on things too.

 

When you sit through miserable undercard matches just to even get to the Andre match only for it to be a let down, that can only compound it.

 

Which is to say there is a difference between pulling out that one match to look for positives and the experience of watching it after fifteen minutes of Jose Estrada vs The Hangman or whatever it was.

 

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year.

[WingedEagle]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:02 PM, Matt D said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 3:38 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

I guess it is also worth noting that watching matches in the context of a whole card can have an effect on things too.

 

When you sit through miserable undercard matches just to even get to the Andre match only for it to be a let down, that can only compound it.

 

Which is to say there is a difference between pulling out that one match to look for positives and the experience of watching it after fifteen minutes of Jose Estrada vs The Hangman or whatever it was.

 

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year.

 

 

I still have no idea how anyone can answer this question for any match unless it is explicitly hammered home by commentary or some blatant, shout it from the rafters action in the ring.

[JerryvonKramer]

And what if the answer is "for people to take a shit break and buy snacks?"

[WingedEagle]

In that case you'd want them to answer the question in a more subtle fashion because if everyone takes the hint the lines for merch & snacks will be ridiculously long.

[JerryvonKramer]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:25 PM, WingedEagle said:

In that case you'd want them to answer the question in a more subtle fashion because if everyone takes the hint the lines for merch & snacks will be ridiculously long.

The real reason for the Divas revolution, ha ha

[WingedEagle]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:30 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:25 PM, WingedEagle said:

In that case you'd want them to answer the question in a more subtle fashion because if everyone takes the hint the lines for merch & snacks will be ridiculously long.

The real reason for the Divas revolution, ha ha

 

 

I've got no objection. The show doesn't have a natural halftime or intermission, it makes sense to provide a couple outs for people to spend money and stretch their legs. Five stars!

[Matt D]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:14 PM, WingedEagle said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:02 PM, Matt D said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 3:38 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

I guess it is also worth noting that watching matches in the context of a whole card can have an effect on things too.

 

When you sit through miserable undercard matches just to even get to the Andre match only for it to be a let down, that can only compound it.

 

Which is to say there is a difference between pulling out that one match to look for positives and the experience of watching it after fifteen minutes of Jose Estrada vs The Hangman or whatever it was.

 

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year.

 

 

I still have no idea how anyone can answer this question for any match unless it is explicitly hammered home by commentary or some blatant, shout it from the rafters action in the ring.

 

 

 

I'm not 100% sure how to respond to you. Obviously you think that wrestling is a far less nuanced, either intentionally or indirectly, art form than I do. I am honestly glad that you enjoy what you enjoy despite that. The best answer I can give you is that if you watch a lot of wrestling, you can see patterns. It's that if you learn about wrestling and about how cards built and were put together, you can come to see signs. Can you read things in that aren't there? Probably, which is why you don't just watch one or two or three or six matches for a process like this. You watch a lot and you try to see how two different wrestlers respond to a specific situations; you look at how a wrestler responds to two different situations. Can you ever KNOW? No. But you can think and you can feel. It's a manner of engaging with the text and making connections, which is the basis of almost all learning and understanding.

 

As for a piss break? Yeah, that has a purpose and the question then becomes whether or not the wrestler did the best job he or she could in order to achieve the purpose of the match. How you weigh that relative to everything else is up to you, but I think it's ridiculous to penalize a wrestler for going out and cooling down the crowd if their job was to go out there and cool down the crowd. You don't have to reward them for it, but it's something to keep in mind for the sake of this project.

[JerryvonKramer]

I really want to see Matt D review more matches from the Vince Sr crew. No part of that is meant snarkily or perversely. I just think that his way of viewing wrestling will exonerate the Sciclunas, the Denuccis, and the Strongbows of this world, which if nothing else would be really fun and interesting to see done.

 

I guess some of my own confusion sometimes comes from the fact that I don't really understand why he picks an act like Demolition to praise as opposed to guys who worked Mid-South (to my mind the most smartly worked of any promotion, especially in terms of working around limitations), but maybe he thinks it has been done already?

[Matt D]

It's because I don't actually look to do any of this, Parv. You've got it backwards. It came naturally from what I was watching. The lightbulb went off when I just happened to be watching every bit of TV and house show and big event we had in 89 WWF. I saw patterns and worked backwards from there. I'm still refining all of this from watching a lot of matches. I didn't come in with a thesis. I ended up absorbing a lot of data and making conclusions and that helped me make a lens to see more matches through and so on.

 

In the AWA set, the wrestlers that jumped out at me were the wrestlers that jumped out at me. The things that pissed me off were the things that pissed me off.

[WingedEagle]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:38 PM, Matt D said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:14 PM, WingedEagle said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:02 PM, Matt D said:

 

  On 3/16/2016 at 3:38 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

I guess it is also worth noting that watching matches in the context of a whole card can have an effect on things too.

 

When you sit through miserable undercard matches just to even get to the Andre match only for it to be a let down, that can only compound it.

 

Which is to say there is a difference between pulling out that one match to look for positives and the experience of watching it after fifteen minutes of Jose Estrada vs The Hangman or whatever it was.

 

To be fair, that's true with almost every match each and every one of has watched in this process. I've been on a purpose kick lately, because I think we undervalue the idea of "what is this match trying to achieve?" That's important, but so is context, both within the card and within the week/month/year.

 

 

I still have no idea how anyone can answer this question for any match unless it is explicitly hammered home by commentary or some blatant, shout it from the rafters action in the ring.

 

 

 

I'm not 100% sure how to respond to you. Obviously you think that wrestling is a far less nuanced, either intentionally or indirectly, art form than I do. I am honestly glad that you enjoy what you enjoy despite that. The best answer I can give you is that if you watch a lot of wrestling, you can see patterns. It's that if you learn about wrestling and about how cards built and were put together, you can come to see signs. Can you read things in that aren't there? Probably, which is why you don't just watch one or two or three or six matches for a process like this. You watch a lot and you try to see how two different wrestlers respond to a specific situations; you look at how a wrestler responds to two different situations. Can you ever KNOW? No. But you can think and you can feel. It's a manner of engaging with the text and making connections, which is the basis of almost all learning and understanding.

 

As for a piss break? Yeah, that has a purpose and the question then becomes whether or not the wrestler did the best job he or she could in order to achieve the purpose of the match. How you weigh that relative to everything else is up to you, but I think it's ridiculous to penalize a wrestler for going out and cooling down the crowd if their job was to go out there and cool down the crowd. You don't have to reward them for it, but it's something to keep in mind for the sake of this project.

 

 

I do generally think its far less nuanced, but am open to be proven wrong. But I'd need facts to back that up, rather than observations. I can understand looking at a match or show and identifying reasons why one likes or doesn't like it. Those are observations based on what it is presented in the ring, on commentary or both. But bringing in specific situations requires such an incredible amount of speculation:

 

How many minutes were called for on the run sheet?

How thoroughly was the match laid out beforehand?

What latitude were the wrestlers allowed to vary from the answers to the previous questions?

What was to come from the mach from an in-ring or storyline perspective at the next show?

At the next 6 shows?

At the next 60 shows?

Why would they want to audible on a given night for one particular crowd that could represent anywhere from an insignificant fraction to a sizeable segment of the company's audience?

 

And probably dozens of others.

 

Its one thing to formulate answers to those questions and then evaluate a match on that basis, but it seems quite another to answer them for ourselves rather than on the basis of fact. Just don't see how we're supposed to recreate every vital aspect of the context that goes into a match when in most cases we don't have any of it.

[WingedEagle]

  On 3/16/2016 at 4:49 PM, Matt D said:

It's because I don't actually look to do any of this, Parv. You've got it backwards. It came naturally from what I was watching. The lightbulb went off when I just happened to be watching every bit of TV and house show and big event we had in 89 WWF. I saw patterns and worked backwards from there. I'm still refining all of this from watching a lot of matches. I didn't come in with a thesis. I ended up absorbing a lot of data and making conclusions and that helped me make a lens to see more matches through and so on.

 

In the AWA set, the wrestlers that jumped out at me were the wrestlers that jumped out at me. The things that pissed me off were the things that pissed me off.

 

Are those patterns? Or are they marching orders from the dressing room?

[Matt D]

We learn a lot. We watch a lot. We do our best. I understand if you feel like we can never get close. But I think we actually do a great job with it. I'm impressed each and every day that I'm on this message board by the discussions of the people around me, the history that they know, the context they bring in, the analysis they bring to bear. When they tell me to look for something, I very often see it. When I don't, or when I disagree, I argue. I have a lot of faith in my fellow posters, though, because they've earned it with their hard work.

[JerryvonKramer]

I just wanted to note two things before taking my leave of this one:

 

1. I have Andre on my list.

 

2. This discussion came from several of us watching the footage in context and in order noting a pattern of Andre's matches sucking badly in WWF during the Vince Sr era. Matt's observations come from seeing something in Andre in 1989 and working backwards to back up that claim. And he hasn't ever tried to hide that.

 

It's cool I think if he can see stuff that we might overlook. I mean his analysis of 1991 Garvin and Hayes Freebirds is some funny stuff, and he saw things there that me and Chad routinely ran roughshod over cos you almost already know Jimmy Jam has the worst worker award tied up for the night. The discourse is richer for this.

[Matt D]

  On 3/16/2016 at 5:01 PM, JerryvonKramer said:

I just wanted to note two things before taking my leave of this one:

 

1. I have Andre on my list.

 

2. This discussion came from several of us watching the footage in context and in order noting a pattern of Andre's matches sucking badly in WWF during the Vince Sr era. Matt's observations come from seeing something in Andre in 1989 and working backwards to back up that claim. And he hasn't ever tried to hide that.

 

It's cool I think if he can see stuff that we might overlook. I mean his analysis of 1991 Garvin and Hayes Freebirds is some funny stuff, and he saw things there that me and Chad routinely ran roughshod over cos you almost already know Jimmy Jam has the worst worker award tied up for the night. The discourse is richer for this.

On #2. It's perfectly okay for you to value different things than I do. THAT makes the discourse richer. It's art. (and let's double back in April and talk about how it's commercial art, maybe, because I think there's an interesting line in that direction).

[WingedEagle]

I've learned more about wrestling, and more importantly, thought more about how I watch and think about wrestling, from this place than anywhere else online. But outside of perhaps some very narrow, specific instances, I just don't see how the insight is available to view a match with the proper context to evaluate the purpose, options available and other short-/long-term factors shaping what occurred, and could occur, from bell to bell. We don't know what was behind those other doors.