Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Some general thoughts. Stan Hansen - has been in some of my favourite (and some of the best) matches, and made wrestling not seem fake. The way he would go about the ring showed little thought, and that's a good thing. He went in there for a fight, whatever happened, happened, and someone was gettin hurt. When I think of professional wrestling, Stan Hansen is one of the first images I get in my mind. Hansen is a borderline big man, though. 6'3, 320+lbs, that's a BIG man in everyday life, but it's on the lower end of the big man spectrum in professional wrestling. Vader - I see Vader as a guy really good wrestlers have great matches with, rather than him actively being part of making that great match. He's like a lump of clay, and its up to his opponent to make something out of it. He plays his role well and it's one that can be universally played to. He can give a great beating. But when it comes to the actual match, I don't see him as the reason why it's great. That's my impression, anyways. Hulk Hogan - that Hulk Hogan is rarely ever considered a big man is a testiment to his ability to play the underdog role so well. During World War III (I forget which one) they talked about each ring having a giant in them - I think one was Nash, one was Giant and I wondered who the third was - they said Hogan. I scoffed for a second and then remembered that Hogan was a big dude. Earlier in his career he played the monster, and was actually pretty good at it despite having a limited moveset and athleticism. He made up for it though selling and his charisma. He got the most out of every move, and that's something that carried with him throughout his career. Hogan, at his peak, moved around very quickly for a guy that was 6'6 303lbs. I think of his match against Randy Savage at WM V and I can't believe he moved around so well. Undertaker - most wrestlers will give the line that Taker is the best big man ever and most people who hear that will say it's because of politics and they're sucking up to the locker room leader. That may be the case, but the sentiment shouldn't be written off so easily. I think Taker has immensely improved over the years to the point to where when I see him at live shows, I am looking forward to him wrestling. When he has his working boots on, he can go. I love how he has infused MMA into his repetoire, from his (sweet!) punches to the (lame!) submissions. Taker is and was very agile for his size and knew when to use it. I think of his WM 19 match against Albert and Big Show and it shows that this guy can work cause in my view it was one of the best matches on the show. He is certainly no where near Hansens level, but I don't think he deserves to be excluded from the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alfdogg Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Surprised there's been no mention of Brock yet...granted, I've never watched anything regularly outside of WWE and WCW, and now TNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Have you been hitting the bong with LoTC or something, RRR??? There is no way in Hades that Hogan or the Undertaker could carry a 56 year-old Antonio Inoki to one of his Top 5 greatest matches of all-time like Vader did. Both Hogan and the Undertaker are...passable workers at best...but to even lump Vader and Hansen in with those two slugs is a crime against nature. Jeebus. Vader's match against Inoki, who was a crummy wrestler throughout most of his career, earned Vader his label as one of the best big guy's in wrestling. Only Bob Backlund was maybe able to pull out as great of a match from Inoki as Vader did that night. If you have the match, go back and re-watch the 1/4/96 Vader/Inoki match. You criminally dogged Vader in your post above while heaping praise onto two guys who were lifers with the WWF Match Formula layout that offered up no variety or freedom to workers who could actually work well during those two guys company runs (with the formula still in tact to this day). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Undertaker is frustratingly good, in that he'll occasionally bust out such a great performance that you're left wondering what the hell he's doing the rest of the time he's out there. The guy could fucking rule if he chose to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Some Inoki love... the more NJ I watch, the more I like Inoki's matches. He's no Jumbo but who is? You know, this is a point to ponder... some people say the point of wrestling is to make it look real without actually hurting the guy (ie Bobby Eaton) and others say the point is to make it look real even if it hurts the opponent legit (ie Stan Hansen/ Kawada/ Vader). So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I've watched Taker since his ABA "renaissance" in 2000 and there is just nothing I've seen from him that could suggest to me he's worthy of "great" big man praise after crapping the bed with Flair in their "really good" Wrestlemania match, which I thought stunk to high hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 His run as champ in '02 really didn't get the credit it deserved from anyone (self included) just because he was one of the worst possible choices to be champ at that point in time. But he made Rob Van Dam, John Cena, Jeff Hardy, Kurt Angle, Tommy Dreamer and Taijiri all look like they were about to become the champ at some point or another in that little window, and in retrospect, it was a hell of a run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Some Inoki love... the more NJ I watch, the more I like Inoki's matches. He's no Jumbo but who is? You know, this is a point to ponder... some people say the point of wrestling is to make it look real without actually hurting the guy (ie Bobby Eaton) and others say the point is to make it look real even if it hurts the opponent legit (ie Stan Hansen/ Kawada/ Vader). So which is it? ... The "people" who "say the point is to make it look real even if it hurts the opponent legit" are douchebags and should be dipped dick first into a vat of acid. To answer your question Helmet, the point of wrestling is to never break the "escapism" that fans have going on when a match is going on. If there are no screw-ups in the match and both opponents look like legit tough guys after the match, then they have done their job. That's all wrestling fans could ask for. Just keep the illusion going on without a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 His run as champ in '02 really didn't get the credit it deserved from anyone (self included) just because he was one of the worst possible choices to be champ at that point in time. But he made Rob Van Dam, John Cena, Jeff Hardy, Kurt Angle, Tommy Dreamer and Taijiri all look like they were about to become the champ at some point or another in that little window, and in retrospect, it was a hell of a run. Did you think most of the matches with those guys were better than your average Taker match though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Bret Hart has said that if you're in the ring with a great worker, you will catch yourself at times not even knowing if he's touching you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Did you think most of the matches with those guys were better than your average Taker match though? If people are standing in the audience because they truly believe Jeff Hardy is about to become WWF World Champion, then yes, the match is above average. Ditto most of the other names mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 OK, I didn't word that properly... Guys like Kawada, Hansen, Vader, Misawa, Kobashi, etc. have all inflicted damge that hurts their opponent. When they go in the back, they are the walking wounded. Listento shoot interviews form the guys who wrked All Japan and they all say as much. In Foley's book, he tells the tale of Terry Funk punching him and it hurt like hell. Funk tells Mick something to the effect of "Awww, you just thought I was good or something". On the flipside you have guys like Bobby Eaton who had credible offense but in their shoot, the Fantastics say it was like bumping off a pillow. So, why I can see the argument that Eaton is a great worker, why do we heap praise on guys who are either careless (Hansen, Vader) or just notoriously stiff (Kawada, Dr Death), do end up injuring their opponents, but have great matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alfdogg Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I remember there being a rumor that they were actually going to give the title to Hardy in that match, only to have him drop it to Angle the very next night (SD taping), who would presumably then drop it to Rock on the way to Brock winning it. Any truth to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I remember the same rumor and I'm not sure. I can e-mail Meltzer and find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I don't call beating the shit out of Inoki "carrying Inoki", so I never saw that match as a big plus on Vaders record. I thought it was rather poorly paced as well and found it almost frustrating to watch and never thought it lived up to the hype. I credit Inoki taking the beating and having the legacy and age to give the beating weight more than I credit Vader giving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 And the point of wrestling is to get people to pay money. Guys didn't go "Hey, let's pretend to fight so we can create some masterful art" or "Hey, let's give these people some great escapism by making it seem like we hate each other". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 OK, I didn't word that properly... Guys like Kawada, Hansen, Vader, Misawa, Kobashi, etc. have all inflicted damge that hurts their opponent. When they go in the back, they are the walking wounded. Listento shoot interviews form the guys who wrked All Japan and they all say as much. In Foley's book, he tells the tale of Terry Funk punching him and it hurt like hell. Funk tells Mick something to the effect of "Awww, you just thought I was good or something". On the flipside you have guys like Bobby Eaton who had credible offense but in their shoot, the Fantastics say it was like bumping off a pillow. So, why I can see the argument that Eaton is a great worker, why do we heap praise on guys who are either careless (Hansen, Vader) or just notoriously stiff (Kawada, Dr Death), do end up injuring their opponents, but have great matches?I get what you're saying but, the thing is, I doubt those guys intended to stiff their opponents and just got caught up in the "zone" where some dudes just see all red when they hit the ring. Kawada broke Misawa's orbital bone but they both understood that shit happens in a wrasslin ring and you've gotta sack up and keep on going. It's like actors who are "fighting" in a scene and one of them throws a punch that actually connects and knock the other guy down silly. He/she probably didn't intend on that happening but fighting, by nature, is uncontrollable and sometimes incidents like that happen. This is one of the reasons why I thought Kurt Angle was acting like a punk after he got kicked in the face by RVD in a couple of their matches and was bleeding from the mouth. Angle, a real life fighter and wrestler, just totally dropped his balls off into his wifey's lap and bitched and bitched about how "dangerous" RVD is when many fans saw the incidents for what they really were: accidents. Angle on the otherhand, along with his wife, freaked the fuck out (probably in part due to his broken neck...which is really fuckin redundant when you think about all the powerbombs and suplexes he's taken over the years). It was from that point on that I knew there was no hope for Angle to grow as a worker and became content with the fact that he is and always will be a WWE spot monkey worker. Working stiff gets more love from the garbage fiends who like ECW, FMW or Necro Butcher since they have some "real pain" to justify them watching a fake entertainment show. It's like Meltzer heaping MMA with wrestling in order to justify his career and existance. I'd say that the people with a brain praise the "stiff" workers more out of respect for keeping things "real" but not going overboard and crippling someone. Not every punch is going to end up being a whiff (unfortunately for the guy on the receiving end). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 And the point of wrestling is to get people to pay money. Guys didn't go "Hey, let's pretend to fight so we can create some masterful art" or "Hey, let's give these people some great escapism by making it seem like we hate each other". Thank you for pointing out the obvious RRR. ::lame smiley face:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Taker vs. Angle Taker vs. Lesnar Taker vs. Orton Taker vs. Albert/Big Show All have great Taker performances in them. I never said Taker was on Hansens level, infact I said he was no where near Hansens level, but I don't think he deserves to be left out of the discussion, especially when Big Bossman gets mentioned and Bubba never had the matches Taker has had. When it comes to Vader vs. Taker, maybe we should bust out Canadian Stampede and see who does what and how well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 There's also a difference between stiff and careless. Working snug is probably fine, but working reckless and endangering your opponent is another ballgame entirely. It's possible to work stiff and still protect your opponent. Then again, wrestlers themselves are going to be the ones who are most qualified to have an opinion on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyOwnSummer Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Undertaker may not be a great worker but he's likely been more effective as a big man (at least in North America) than any modern worker. When it comes to ranking the best big men I think you have to look not just at his in ring ability but how well he plays the role. Undertaker, especially when he first debuted scared the shit out of people. Undertaker hasn't needed to be a great worker because his brand of "charisma" is so effective that when he sells or loses a match it's much more impressive than what you see from other workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 And the point of wrestling is to get people to pay money. Guys didn't go "Hey, let's pretend to fight so we can create some masterful art" or "Hey, let's give these people some great escapism by making it seem like we hate each other".Thank you for pointing out the obvious RRR. ::lame smiley face:: It clearly isn't that obvious when I read things like "the point of wrestling is to never break the "escapism" that fans have going on when a match is going on". Fact is, whether it's legit or not doesn't really matter, it's as long as the fans who have paid to see it will pay to see more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 Taker vs. Angle Taker vs. Lesnar Taker vs. Orton Taker vs. Albert/Big Show All have great Taker performances in them. I never said Taker was on Hansens level, infact I said he was no where near Hansens level, but I don't think he deserves to be left out of the discussion, especially when Big Bossman gets mentioned and Bubba never had the matches Taker has had. When it comes to Vader vs. Taker, maybe we should bust out Canadian Stampede and see who does what and how well. I was never impressed with Bossman so I think people were hitting the bong when they mentioned him. I'll give you the Lesnar matches but I thought Angle had a better series of matches against Kane than him and Taker had. The Orton match at Mania was better than it had any right to be, which is probably the best example of the Undertaker aging nicely as a worker that you'll find. Nice choice. The endless series of matches vs. the Big Show and Albert, along with their handicap match at Mania 19, were, I felt, atrocious for the most part. I never thought the Undertaker worked a smart or "real" match with TBS, which goes back to what I said about TBS in the Big Show thread Loss started: There are no momentum spots with a guy the size of the Big Show. In fact, there *shouldn't* be any spots, like an irish whip powerslam or some such spot, with a guy like the Big Show. It's just too goddamn hokey and forced. Not even someone like Kane should be manhandling the Big Show like that. It's okay if he tries to Tombstone the Big Show but getting TBS up for a chokeslam is goddamn ridiculous. I remember in '01 when TBS and the Undertaker had like only their 2nd televised singles match, the first being the bat angle match in '99, where Taker threw the Big Show off the top rope with a powerbomb and pinned him clean. This was around the time Taker was still using the Last Ride as his finisher and the set-up for the move, where TBS was climbing the ropes, and it looked so fucking forced. This, I felt, was the pinnacle of bad Big Show booking. The Undertaker popped up between TBS' legs and got a running start and just threw TBS to the mat and pinned him. TBS never went up to the top rope before that and I just thought this was one of *the* prime examples of bad in-ring booking where TBS gets made to look like a chump at the expense of another wrestler's lack of creative in-ring story telling. Vince should have never, ever, allowed the Undertaker to do that to the Big Show. TBS never went up to the tope rope except twice in the WWE prior to this match where he hit the shittiest flying dropkick I've ever seen and one of the fattest elbow drops that missed it's mark. This all happened when he was the champ I believe. But, TBS going up the tope rope, only so Taker could actually finish off TBS with his shitty finisher, just exposed the match and ruined the escapism in my view. That should, never, ever, ever happen in a match. I never, ever, hope to see another Undertaker and Big Show match again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sass Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 And the point of wrestling is to get people to pay money.? Guys didn't go "Hey, let's pretend to fight so we can create some masterful art" or "Hey, let's give these people some great escapism by making it seem like we hate each other".Thank you for pointing out the obvious RRR. ::lame smiley face:: It clearly isn't that obvious when I read things like "the point of wrestling is to never break the "escapism" that fans have going on when a match is going on". Fact is, whether it's legit or not doesn't really matter, it's as long as the fans who have paid to see it will pay to see more of it. The two things go hand in hand together though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 I've always maintained Taker was underrated as a worker since he was matched up with some of the most untalented shitpiles in wrestling history during his peak period. Honestly, who's gonna get anything watchable out of Yoko, Giant Gonzales, Mable, and Sid? When he was paired with someone who knew what they were doing, it usually produced matches that were at least watchable if not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts