Where the Big Boys Play #77 - Beach Blast 1992

[soup23]

http://placetobenation.com/where-the-big-boys-play-77-beach-blast-92/

 

 

Chad and Parv return to 1992 to review Beach Blast 92.

– [02:58] Observer roundup, including: a complete and thoroughgoing analysis of all of Bill Watts’s “Ten Commandments” for the locker room and the myriad other changes he made to the product and managemnet decisions
– [01:24:47] Review of Beach Blash 92, including: thoughts on Scotty Flamingo, the booking of Brian Pillman, judging the Bikini contest between Missy Hyatt and Madusa, and where does Rude vs. Steamboat Ironman match rank in the pantheon of the all-time great matches?
– [2:30:58] End of show awards

[El Boricua]

Pumped to see another WTBBP is out. Hope to give this a listen soon.

[Magpie]

Always look forward to a new one from Chad and Parv. I like that they actually listen to each other, not talk over each other or hammer their point home at the expense of the show going off course.

[Dylan Waco]

Will listen to this tomorrow, but noting for the record that Rude v. Steamer is in my mind the best WCW match ever

[thebrainfollower]

You guys gave the best and fairest analysis of Cowboy Bill's rules I have ever heard.

 

 

Major kudos to this show and if Parv thinks Jesse-mania is out of control I can only imagine.

 

Really like this show. By far the best PPV of the Watts era.

[soup23]

Will listen to this tomorrow, but noting for the record that Rude v. Steamer is in my mind the best WCW match ever

 

Forgot to mention this but it was a prevailing thought in my mind while watching. What was the time-frame of that poll as if it would determine where Rude/Steamboat would end up for me.

[bkord123]

I'm about 45 minutes in and I love the show as usual. Great work, boys. I actually have fond memories of the Watts era. There was a realism and grittiness to it that struck a chord with me. Btw, is there a document you can post with the Watts' rules? I ask because I want my older brother to see them and he's about as computer literate as a chimp and wouldn't know how to download a podcast if his life depended on it. Maybe you can type them up, Parv. jk

[soup23]

The Ten Commandments of Bill Watts

1. Thou shalt not use the barricade or be automatically DQ'd

2. Thou shalt not wrestle outside the ring

3. Thou shalt not have low blows. First offense is $1,000, second $2,500, third $5,000 and breach of contract.

4. Thou shalt arrive at the arena for a show an hour before the opening bell. The same fines as above apply.

5. Thou shalt make every effort to make every event. The only excuse is if I cause you to miss it.

6. Even if injured, you have to attend the events so the fans don't suspect false advertising.

7. No talking over the P.A., hand gestures, or words taking my name in vain allowed.

8. Saints and sinners should be separated at all times and not travel together.

9. Only two tickets to the show are allowed for free.

10. No one is allowed backstage.

[bkord123]

Thank you!!!!!!

[kbenn123]

Great show, as usual. To provide some context on the light heavyweight title, after Brad Armstrong wins the title, he vacates it at Clash 20 in September due to injury. This is also when Pillman turns heel when he finds out Armstrong will not be defending the title.

 

They announce a tournament will be held in the future, but that never happens. I think Watts wanted to lose some of the titles as the US tag team titles were dropped at the end of July. The tv title was also vacated in September/October when the Steiners left, and the tournament to fill that vacancy was not held until 1993.

 

Clash 20 also marks the end of the top rope rule as they ask that you call the hotline ($1.49 a minute of course) to vote to rescind the rule. I remember they gave the results as something like 90% voted to rescind, but apparently 10% liked the rule and wanted to keep it.

[thebrainfollower]

Scott Steiner hates Bill Watts to this day. I agree with Parv, this was terrible booking, the last match should NOT have been what it was, either in execution or what went on last.

Bill Watts 1992 PPV's are all booked by someone who is clueless IMO. This is the best one though.

[thebrainfollower]

Thought Doc and Gordy were horribly overrated and selfish as could be FWIW.

[Matt D]

I resented Watts for years for killing the Light Heavyweight title.

[The Chief]

I love the breakdown you guys give of the Ten Commandments. Great analysis and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say.

 

Parv, believe it or not, Bill Watts would bring Russo into booking meetings during his brief run booking WWF in 1995, when Russo was just working on the Magazine. So you could say Watts of all people is indirectly responsible for Russo's rise to power.

[BigBadMick]

Saving this for work on Monday.

[shoe]

The booking of this show has always bothered me. The final match going 30 killed the Iron man stip. Why not make the Sting match a title match if Sting is winning. Surprised Vader didn't have a presence on this show getting him over as the new killer heel.

[cheapshot]

Just started listening to this. Beach Blast was another of the those Turner tapes that when released in the UK was cut to ribbons. We did get the full 30 minutes of the Iron Man match though, as well as Missy's "Big Beautiful, Blue..... Eyes".

[drew wardlaw]

YES a new episode! This is a good day to go to work.

[Woof]

The booking of this show has always bothered me. The final match going 30 killed the Iron man stip. Why not make the Sting match a title match if Sting is winning. Surprised Vader didn't have a presence on this show getting him over as the new killer heel.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this one, Shoe, for two reasons. One, we very rarely get non-title matches where the champ wins (that don't involve an outright jobber), which tends to telegraph the result. "Oh, it's non-title? Guess the champ is losing here." So having one on a PPV where the champ actually prevailed was a nice change-up.

 

Also, because Cactus could be seen as not necessarily being deserving of a title shot but the two guys wanted to tear each other apart anyway, it gives a little value to the title itself. It's like the matchmakers are saying, "ok, we're gonna let these two go at it, but this is not a worthy challenger (at the moment) and this type of match is not representative of how we feel that title should be defended".

 

Current day product has so badardized that concept of the stipulation match that we just take it for granted the title is always on the line, but in reality, most non-traditional matches shouldn't be for the title. They're meant to settle differences, not decide champions. It would actually be a useful tool for current WWE's style of booking rematches over multiple months. Heel challenges babyface in first match, but loses. He does something nefarious in the weeks that follow to really get under the babyface's skin, eventually leading to the babyface demaning the non-title stip match. Heel wins, giving him leverage to demand a second title match which the babyface then wins cleanly. You get the same three-match cycle you want, but you don't have to: A) burn through two stips to get there; schmoz up the end of the stip match with some contrived finish in order to justify the third. Plus you get the added bonus of every now and then having the heel goad the babyface into putting the title on the line in the stip match (against the promotions wishes, of course), thus allowing the heel to win the title in a "less than traditional" manner (again necessitating a rematch). Sadly we're at the point now where they just keep having rematches with different stips until the babyface finally wins in a satisfactory way, ending the feud and as a result making the heel look impotent because no matter how many wins he gets overall it's apparently only the last one that matters.

[SteveJRogers]

When does the more infamous "throw someone over the top rope is a DQ" rule go into affect?

 

I know that stays in kayfabe terms into the early Hogan era, in terms of confusing commentators as to whether or not the rule is still in affect.

 

Heard a podcast go over the Sting-Jarret 2000 Halloween Havoc match, with people coming out dressed as Sting's past looks. There is a spot where Borden tosses Surfer Sting over the top rope, and Mark Madden quips how that would have been an automatic DQ back in Surfer Sting's day.

[kbenn123]

When does the more infamous "throw someone over the top rope is a DQ" rule go into affect?

 

I know that stays in kayfabe terms into the early Hogan era, in terms of confusing commentators as to whether or not the rule is still in affect.

 

Heard a podcast go over the Sting-Jarret 2000 Halloween Havoc match, with people coming out dressed as Sting's past looks. There is a spot where Borden tosses Surfer Sting over the top rope, and Mark Madden quips how that would have been an automatic DQ back in Surfer Sting's day.

I thought the over the top rule was already in effect here and for several years prior. However, the enforcement was spotty at best including having it dq someone in one match while it being allowed in another match on the same show. Hearing Tony try to explain the logic behind it was often hilarious.

 

I think the rule ended some time around the beginning of the NWO era as I remember the announcers saying they were doing away with the over the top rule dq to combat the NWO breaking all the rules.

[shoe]

 

The booking of this show has always bothered me. The final match going 30 killed the Iron man stip. Why not make the Sting match a title match if Sting is winning. Surprised Vader didn't have a presence on this show getting him over as the new killer heel.

 

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this one, Shoe, for two reasons. One, we very rarely get non-title matches where the champ wins (that don't involve an outright jobber), which tends to telegraph the result. "Oh, it's non-title? Guess the champ is losing here." So having one on a PPV where the champ actually prevailed was a nice change-up.

 

Also, because Cactus could be seen as not necessarily being deserving of a title shot but the two guys wanted to tear each other apart anyway, it gives a little value to the title itself. It's like the matchmakers are saying, "ok, we're gonna let these two go at it, but this is not a worthy challenger (at the moment) and this type of match is not representative of how we feel that title should be defended".

 

Current day product has so badardized that concept of the stipulation match that we just take it for granted the title is always on the line, but in reality, most non-traditional matches shouldn't be for the title. They're meant to settle differences, not decide champions. It would actually be a useful tool for current WWE's style of booking rematches over multiple months. Heel challenges babyface in first match, but loses. He does something nefarious in the weeks that follow to really get under the babyface's skin, eventually leading to the babyface demaning the non-title stip match. Heel wins, giving him leverage to demand a second title match which the babyface then wins cleanly. You get the same three-match cycle you want, but you don't have to: A) burn through two stips to get there; schmoz up the end of the stip match with some contrived finish in order to justify the third. Plus you get the added bonus of every now and then having the heel goad the babyface into putting the title on the line in the stip match (against the promotions wishes, of course), thus allowing the heel to win the title in a "less than traditional" manner (again necessitating a rematch). Sadly we're at the point now where they just keep having rematches with different stips until the babyface finally wins in a satisfactory way, ending the feud and as a result making the heel look impotent because no matter how many wins he gets overall it's apparently only the last one that matters.

 

 

 

The thing is the World Title match is non title, the Rude vs Steamboat match the title isn't on the line. So the top 2 single's titles are non title. It was a way for Watts to justify putting the Tag Title match on last. It was a title match so it needs to go on last. In 92 titles were still protected somewhat.

[Woof]

Fair enough, but I'd argue the Iron Man Match being non-title is the one that makes no sense. Multi-fall matches should be for the title. Falls Count Anywhere, not so much.

[soup23]

When does the more infamous "throw someone over the top rope is a DQ" rule go into affect?

 

I know that stays in kayfabe terms into the early Hogan era, in terms of confusing commentators as to whether or not the rule is still in affect.

 

Heard a podcast go over the Sting-Jarret 2000 Halloween Havoc match, with people coming out dressed as Sting's past looks. There is a spot where Borden tosses Surfer Sting over the top rope, and Mark Madden quips how that would have been an automatic DQ back in Surfer Sting's day.

 

It was in effect here as during the Dangerous Alliance match, Jesse and JR had a debate on whether or not the face team should have been DQ'd when Arn went over the top.

[Loss]

I could easily see Watts thinking it devalues the World Title to have it defended in a gimmick match. If the goal of a championship match is to determine the best wrestler, the goal of a falls-count-anywhere match is to determine the wildest brawler. There was even a time people thought cage matches for the title were too much of a stretch.