30-man Royal Rumble

[Guest Bruiser Chong]

It's no secret I'm a complete mark for the 1992 Royal Rumble match. Anytime favorite matches, moments, or something similar to those have been brought up, I've piped in with this one more times than not.

 

Last March, I made my girlfriend sit down and watch it with me. She's not a fan by any stretch of the imagination, and is of the mindset that most wrestling is ridiculous. Still, as my favorite Rumble match, as well as one of my all-time favorite matches, I felt it was it was my duty to expose her to it. Like a good sport, she sat through it and although she was clearly bored at certain parts (as I had anticipated), she seemed to like it overall.

 

Thinking it was a match that could be more appreciated the second time around, I popped it in last night and we watched it again. Obviously it hadn't the impact on her that I was hoping for, since she legitimately couldn't remember who won. Still, she seemed to have more of an appreciation for the match this time, in addition to the commentary, which evoked more laughs from her this time around.

 

The match is just so perfect to me. I understand it's not a five star match, but it's definitely a five star moment. The way it's crafted is so brilliant. To the casual fan, much of its genius is overlooked, but it's simply put together so superbly.

 

Bottom line of the match is, everyone hates Ric Flair. The good guys hate him and the bad guys hate him. You had hot heels like the newly turned Shawn Michaels and Jake the Snake reliving their face days by going in there and putting a beatdown on Flair. He's the true star of the match, but so many other elements make it work.

 

The star power for this Rumble is the best. Ever. Hogan, Flair, Undertaker, Jake the Snake, Randy Savage, Roddy Piper, and Sid Justice. Those are just the names of the people that had an excellent chance of actually winning the event. Then you had a strong supporting cast with the likes of the Big Boss Man, Duggan, Texas Tornado, British Bulldog, Sgt. Slaughter, Shawn Michaels, and so many more.

 

Heenan and Monsoon are top-notch for this one. Heenan is in rare form because of Flair and Gorilla, as usual, is the straight men of all straight men. There are dozens of legitimate laugh-out-loud moments thanks to this duo during this match.

 

It's one of those matches where the more understood about the set-up, the more its brilliance seaps through.

[Guest KingPK]

Bottom line of the match is, everyone hates Ric Flair.  The good guys hate him and the bad guys hate him.  You had hot heels like the newly turned Shawn Michaels and Jake the Snake reliving their face days by going in there and putting a beatdown on Flair.  He's the true star of the match, but so many other elements make it work.

 

This is my opinion as well. On top of that, a lot of the fans probably had never seen his NWA work (or thought the NWA was inferior) so they thought this guy was some braggard carrying around a fake belt. Having him not back down for anyone (including the Undertaker, who was still this invincible monster) and having Flair clear the ring, only for his nemesis (Roddy Piper) to come sprinting to the ring and continue his torment, was fantastic booking.

 

I also consider this my favorite Rumble match (although the Rumbles of 2000 and 2001 are up there).

[Loss]

As for the '92 Rumble, goodhelmet has been describing it as more of a classic moment than a classic match, but I seem to remember it differently and need to try to rewatch it soon. The psychology of the perennial NWA World Champion going toe-to-toe with the ENTIRE ROSTER, including all the WWF Elite, and winning their title in the end, overcoming their muscleheads, their top stars and even their most talented performers all along the way, makes this one of the most satisfying matches ever. In a rare case in WWE, the heel is forced to put his money where his mouth is and succeeds. I don't think I'd give it *****, though, mainly because of the following reasons:

 

* There are a lot of segments in the match where there's way too much deadweight, and they need a mass babyface purge and it gets delayed

 

* Randy Fucking Savage eliminating himself and being allowed back in the match anyway

 

* All the rolling outside the ring -- other Rumbles have been far worse in this category, but I'm a firm believer that a battle royal should never spill outside. It sort of negates the purpose of it being a battle royal

 

All said, I'd probably give the match **** though, *** for the match itself with an extra * for the booking. That seems about right. It deserves another rewatch from me.

 

I'd probably end up forgiving the flaws I pointed out even more if Monsoon and Heenan would have acknowledged the past history between guys like Flair and Von Erich, or made comparisons between Michaels and a young Flair when they were fighting. There were so many guys Flair faced off with that he had deep, memorable history against and they didn't acknowledge it because it was a total taboo at the time to point out that another wrestling company existed. In this case, all but WCW were already dead, and it wouldn't have killed them. I tend to think if it happened now, JR would be going crazy bringing up all these things. Or maybe not.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

Rewatch it again and count all the botched spots. For the rumble, that is.

[Guest Bruiser Chong]

* All the rolling outside the ring -- other Rumbles have been far worse in this category, but I'm a firm believer that a battle royal should never spill outside. It sort of negates the purpose of it being a battle royal

There were maybe three instances of action spilling to the outside. The altercation with Taker/Snake/Savage and the Flair/Hogan confrontation near the end. Considering the parties involved in the latter, I thought it was justified, since that was still a dream match at that point.

 

Rewatch it again and count all the botched spots. For the rumble, that is.

I've seen it as many times as anyone I'd imagine and there are only a few spots that look really awkward (i.e. Boss Man's elimination). Care to elaborate?

 

I need to watch Summerslam '89 again. Reading Loss' mini review of the six-man tag has me itching to watch it. Plus there's a hot opener, arguably the Warrior's best match, a quick, but solid Perfect/Terry Taylor match, and a fun Dusty Rhodes/HTM match nestled in there.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

Rewatch it again and count all the botched spots.

 

What is there to elaborate? Last time I watched it there was a ton of botched spots and miscommunication that, in a regular 60 minute match, they would be noted, but because it's a rumble it gets ignored.

[Guest Bruiser Chong]

Some examples would've been nice. I guess I'm just blind because I didn't notice too many botched spots.

[Guest Some Guy]

Some examples would've been nice.  I guess I'm just blind because I didn't notice too many botched spots.

Other than the aforementioned Bossman spot the only other blown spot I can think of was Flair's fault, he started going down just as HBK started to superlick him. Flair had to throw his hands in front of himslelf so that the kick would make any contact. But, in the grand scheme of that match it doesn't really matter.

 

What is there to elaborate? Last time I watched it there was a ton of botched spots and miscommunication that, in a regular 60 minute match, they would be noted, but because it's a rumble it gets ignored.

That would be because it is not a regular 60 minute match. With 30 guys, several of questionable talent are in one match you are bound to have some mess ups. It is my understanding that star ratings are supposed to be based on similar matches. (a street fight to a street fight, HiaC to HiaC, etc...), so by that logic RR 92 would be 5 stars, it is currently the measuring stick, IMO. There wasn't a better one before and hasn't been since. There have been 18 and none are better. When there is a better RR (one with no blown spots, which is a virtual impossiblity and a better storyline, which is nearly impossible because there is no other promotion that matters and as such nobody who embodied said promotion for a decade to take on the whole WWE roster), I'll reconsier my view of this match. I've liked just about all the Rumbles, although 93 and 94 were pretty substandard and if not for HBK's showing in 95 that one would be by far the worst, but 92 is still the best by a good margin.

 

Plus, the Rumble should be looked at differently from a regular broadway because it IS different. Just like Flair/Steamboat: 2/3 falls shouldn't be compared to HBK/Taker: HiaC, they are two totally different matches and styles, but both are excellent. If you enjoy one more than the other it is probably because you enjoy that style more.

[goodhelmet]

That would be because it is not a regular 60 minute match. With 30 guys, several of questionable talent are in one match you are bound to have some mess ups.

Right, and enough mess-ups and enough questionable talent would lead to a match not being *****. You can call the booking 5 stars, the moment a "Five-star moment" but I don't see how this match holds up against the best matches of all-time... it's not even the best gimmick match which I'll explain in a minute.

 

It is my understanding that star ratings are supposed to be based on similar matches. (a street fight to a street fight, HiaC to HiaC, etc...), so by that logic RR 92 would be 5 stars, it is currently the measuring stick, IMO.

No, you can lump all of those matches (Rumble, HIAC, Escape the cage, bullrope, etc.) under gimmick matches. Some gimmick matches suck (like Elimination Chamber) but does that mean the best of the shitty EC matches should be a ***** match? No. The Rumble gimmick has limitations from preventing it reaching the 5 star level and you mentioned them yourself. Sometimes, because of those limitations, it will prevent a match of that ilk from ever truly being able to hit 5 stars. Another example would be the old WWF cage matches. There was a ban on blood and escape rules only. It wasn't always the wrestler's fault that these limitations prevented them from having 5 star matches.

 

Plus, the Rumble should be looked at differently from a regular broadway because it IS different. Just like Flair/Steamboat: 2/3 falls shouldn't be compared to HBK/Taker: HiaC, they are two totally different matches and styles, but both are excellent. If you enjoy one more than the other it is probably because you enjoy that style more.

You can absolutely compare Steamboat-Flair to the HIAC. You can compare the quality of the work, the selling, the common sense of their actions. If you have background knowledge of the story, you can see if they progress from previous encounters. You can see if goofy selling and illogical spots detract from the experience. If I think the entire Kane BS ending detracts from the match, that is a balck mark against the match, not the HIAC gimmick. If people are bothered by the double-pin from the Clash match then they can make an argument it detracts from the match.

 

Just the other day, I was talking to Loss about Tenryu-Jumbo from 6/5/89 and Eddie-JBL from JD 04. Both matches are worked in completely different styles and different eras and have a different audience with different expectations yet I compared them to each other. I can compare the ECW clusterf**k 2/3 falls with the Magnum-Tully cage match even though those are completely different.

 

Ultimately, good wrestling is good wrestling. Sometimes good wrestling does not translate to good tv. Look at Benoit-Malenko from Hog Wild 96. When I first saw that match, I loved it. Why? Because my wife was sleeping when I watched it so I had the volume on real low. When I turned it up, the experience changed. On the flip, sometimes mediocre or ok wrestling can translate to good tv depending on the circumstances... such as the Rumble or the Canadian Stampede main. It was a magic moment or a great angle, not necessarily a great match.

[Guest Some Guy]

When I compare matches I compare them to other like matches. So, I would compare an ECW clusterfuck with the Nasty Boyz vs. Foley and Maxx Payne from Spring Stampede 94 , but not Magnum vs. Tully. The Stampede match was better than any ECW brawl I've ever seen. Magnum/Tully could be compared to a HiaC match because they are cage matches.

 

I don't lump all gimmick matches into one ball, it's not really fair to certain matches. A bull rope match generally speaking is not going to be as good or as exciting as a HiaC match (although the last few HiaCs haven't been particularilly great, but that is mostly because the wrong guys are being put in the match [HHH, Nash at 44 or so, HBK at 39 years old and unable to take the bumps that made the original one great, Brock, Taker at 39, etc...]) because of the limitations of the gimmick. In HiaC you can do all types of spots that cannot be done in a bull rope match. Same with a ladder match. One could argue that it is easier to have a good/more exciting ladder match than a bull rope match because you can take the big bumps and sick ladder shots and such, where as with a bull rope match you need intensity and palpable hatred between the opponents to make it work which is harder to come by than two guys willing to kill themselves by taking sick bumps.

 

I would compare Elim. Chamber to War Games in order to assign a star rating to it, becaues they are comprable in terms of rules and setting. I've seen better War Games (97, 89, 91, 92) than any of the three Chamber matches (although I haven't seen the NYR one, but I'm assuming considering the talent in the match that it is probably worse than the first two) and some worse (93, 94, 97 sucked hard and I've read that 95 and 96 were brutal).

 

I can understand why you wouldn't want to assign 5 stars to a RR match, but I don't see where a good comaprison can be made to Flair/Steamboat. Flair can't really have any long term selling in the match, besides exaustion because he got beat up by 20 different guys in all different ways. In the 2/3 falls match Steamer worked the arm and Flair the leg, that's very straight forward. In RR 92 Flair just got his ass kicked. It's totally different because the match is totally different.

[Loss]

This makes me want to touch on something. I remember when Scott Keith reviewed the Ric Flair DVD and he gave the Starrcade '83 match with Harley Race *****, saying that the bad refereeing from Kiniski brought the match down, but that you can't punish the wrestlers for that.

 

I strongly disagree with that. No one is being "punished", nor should they feel "punished" if a match isn't called *****. I don't have the authority to punish a pro wrestler in the first place, and in the second place, it's possible to give a match all the credit in the world for working as well as it does within pre-imposed limitations, but that still doesn't mean it's a good match or a great match. I guess it's just a case of something needing to be quantified, and it's another example of why 'flakes are only valuable when they're accompanied by some type of explanation.

 

I can see the flip argument, though. When someone tells me, "you need to see this movie! It's great!", I don't immediately say, "What made it great? Watch the movie, take notes and give me your thoughts in detail." I just seek it out for myself and draw my own conclusions. Admittedly though, I don't have the same passion and interest for movies that I do wrestling, and in some circles, I guess people would be asked to explain what made the movie great. And when you post online, discussion doesn't really go anywhere if people don't explain where they're coming from.

 

Goodhelmet and I were recently talking about how the wrestling message board scene has started resembling Dr. Seuss's Sneeches in many ways. There was a time a few years ago when everyone thought Flair was the greatest wrestler who ever lived and that Shawn Michaels had ***** matches on a regular basis and that HHH was the new anointed one, until the tOA crowd started challenging conventional thought and breaking a match down in bare bones fashion for what it really is -- the moves used, the way the crowd connection is established, what the wrestlers do specifically that makes them so good. It's more of a search for the "why" beyond the "what", you might say. That was good for the most part, and it's probably increased my overall understanding of wrestling in the long run. However, it's also left many parrots afraid to call anything good because their opinions would be made fun of. So, now there's a "stars on their bellies" mindset with people afraid to say, "wow, that was a great match!" because they don't want someone showing up and saying another match is better or calling them stupid. So objectively, each mindset has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

I tend to lean toward explanation, not because I'm out to bully anyone or make fun of their opinions or anything, but just to promote discussion. When we can start talking about the way wrestling matches are worked, the advantages and disadvantages to certain styles, approaches and moves, and then start comparing them to other matches under the same criteria, the whole message boarding thing is more fruitful. There's a time for marking out for what's cool, and that's a large part of what pro wrestling is and what it's supposed to be. I'll never deny that. When you throw out a rating, though, you're basically becoming a reviewer by choice, and I think it's important to be able to differentiate from the "cool" and the "great".

 

[goodhelmet]

Some Guy....

When I compare matches I compare them to other like matches. So, I would compare an ECW clusterfuck with the Nasty Boyz vs. Foley and Maxx Payne from Spring Stampede 94 , but not Magnum vs. Tully. The Stampede match was better than any ECW brawl I've ever seen. Magnum/Tully could be compared to a HiaC match because they are cage matches.

And when I compare wrestling matches, I compare them to other wrestling matches... regardless of the gimmick. Sometimes the gimmick enahnces the match, sometimes it takes away.

 

 

I don't lump all gimmick matches into one ball, it's not really fair to certain matches.

Once again, ultimately, it comes down to being a wrestling match. Sometimes the gimmick enhances, sometimes it takes away.

 

 

A bull rope match generally speaking is not going to be as good or as exciting as a HiaC match (although the last few HiaCs haven't been particularilly great, but that is mostly because the wrong guys are being put in the match [HHH, Nash at 44 or so, HBK at 39 years old and unable to take the bumps that made the original one great, Brock, Taker at 39, etc...]) because of the limitations of the gimmick.

What would you rather watch... a Taker-HHH HIAC or an Eddie-Benoit Bullrope match?

 

Ultimately, it is the wrestlers who determine how good the match is or if the gimmick is used properly.

 

 

In HiaC you can do all types of spots that cannot be done in a bull rope match. Same with a ladder match. One could argue that it is easier to have a good/more exciting ladder match than a bull rope match because you can take the big bumps and sick ladder shots and such, where as with a bull rope match you need intensity and palpable hatred between the opponents to make it work which is harder to come by than two guys willing to kill themselves by taking sick bumps.

The JBL-Eddie Bullrope match was better than the Edge-Christian ladder match. I could name more such as HHH-Y2J HIAC, Taker-Mankind HIAC, etc. but the point remains... it is not the gimmick's fault if the workers can't incorporate the gimmick in a meaningful way and sometimes it isn't the worker's fault if the gimmick prevents them from having a 5 star match.

 

Also, sick bumps may be entertaining but they don't necessarily make for a great match. Hell, CZW and other feds have proven that time and again.

 

 

I would compare Elim. Chamber to War Games in order to assign a star rating to it, becaues they are comprable in terms of rules and setting. I've seen better War Games (97, 89, 91, 92) than any of the three Chamber matches (although I haven't seen the NYR one, but I'm assuming considering the talent in the match that it is probably worse than the first two) and some worse (93, 94, 97 sucked hard and I've read that 95 and 96 were brutal). 

And I would compare these to any multi-person match. I would even compare them to a singles match or tag match. Ultimately, as long as you understand the context you can compare and contrast any match to another.

 

It is what infuriates me about SK more than anything. ***1/2 for "entertaining crap" or *** + * for the angle AFTER the match. They are two different elements. For example, the Eddie-JBL match from JD 04 had a brutal beatdown that Eddie administered to JBL after the match. It worked and was entertaining but when the star rating goes off for me, it goes off when the match is over.

 

I can understand why you wouldn't want to assign 5 stars to a RR match, but I don't see where a good comaprison can be made to Flair/Steamboat. Flair can't really have any long term selling in the match, besides exaustion because he got beat up by 20 different guys in all different ways. In the 2/3 falls match Steamer worked the arm and Flair the leg, that's very straight forward. In RR 92 Flair just got his ass kicked. It's totally different because the match is totally different.

You just gave examples of differences between the two matches. There are also similarities. Comparisons can be found. Both matches have weaknesses that can detract from it.

 

On another note, of course they are different. It still doesn't mean you can't compare the two.

 

 

 

 

Loss...

This makes me want to touch on something. I remember when Scott Keith reviewed the Ric Flair DVD and he gave the Starrcade '83 match with Harley Race *****, saying that the bad refereeing from Kiniski brought the match down, but that you can't punish the wrestlers for that.

 

I strongly disagree with that. No one is being "punished", nor should they feel "punished" if a match isn't called *****. I don't have the authority to punish a pro wrestler in the first place, and in the second place, it's possible to give a match all the credit in the world for working as well as it does within pre-imposed limitations, but that still doesn't mean it's a good match or a great match. I guess it's just a case of something needing to be quantified, and it's another example of why 'flakes are only valuable when they're accompanied by some type of explanation.

 

Agreed. I don't have any problem with people giving the RUmble ***** but if you do then it should hold up to scrutiny. You gave Savage-Warrior ****+. I gave it less than *** but we both examined the match, disagreed about key moments and wht they meant. Ultimately, we both agreed about the Canadian Stampede main. It doesn't hold up under close examination as a **** powerhouse match.

 

 

I can see the flip argument, though.

You're just being diplomatic.

 

 

When someone tells me, "you need to see this movie! It's great!", I don't immediately say, "What made it great? Watch the movie, take notes and give me your thoughts in detail." I just seek it out for myself and draw my own conclusions. Admittedly though, I don't have the same passion and interest for movies that I do wrestling, and in some circles, I guess people would be asked to explain what made the movie great.

Right, but if you say that movie is a classic and I say it sucked, usually I'll give you a list of reasons or some sort of explanation of why it sucked. The same thing goes with music. The same thing can be said about art or food.

 

Goodhelmet and I were recently talking about how the wrestling message board scene has started resembling Dr. Seuss's Sneeches in many ways. There was a time a few years ago when everyone thought Flair was the greatest wrestler who ever lived and that Shawn Michaels had ***** matches on a regular basis and that HHH was the new anointed one, until the tOA crowd started challenging conventional thought and breaking a match down in bare bones fashion for what it really is -- the moves used, the way the crowd connection is established, what the wrestlers do specifically that makes them so good. It's more of a search for the "why" beyond the "what", you might say. That was good for the most part, and it's probably increased my overall understanding of wrestling in the long run. However, it's also left many parrots afraid to call anything good because their opinions would be made fun of. So, now there's a "stars on their bellies" mindset with people afraid to say, "wow, that was a great match!" because they don't want someone showing up and saying another match is better or calling them stupid. So objectively, each mindset has its advantages and disadvantages.

I'll take the "why" over the "what" anyday. If people can't explain why they thought a match was a great match, I choose not to take their word seriously. This is why I don't seek out matches based on SK snowflakes. If CTC, Cooke, Loss, jdw, etc. recommend a match I would prolly jump to find it because I know they can and will back up their judgment. This doesn't mean that other people are stupid (some cases they are) or that they aren't real fans or whatever but at some point it becomes obvious that people are working on a different plane of understanding.

 

I tend to lean toward explanation, not because I'm out to bully anyone or make fun of their opinions or anything, but just to promote discussion.

F**k it, I'll call a spade a spade. What discussion is there to be had when there is no explanation?

 

When we can start talking about the way wrestling matches are worked, the advantages and disadvantages to certain styles, approaches and moves, and then start comparing them to other matches under the same criteria, the whole message boarding thing is more fruitful. There's a time for marking out for what's cool, and that's a large part of what pro wrestling is and what it's supposed to be. I'll never deny that. When you throw out a rating, though, you're basically becoming a reviewer by choice, and I think it's important to be able to differentiate from the "cool" and the "great".

Agreed.

[Guest Some Guy]

Some Guy....

When I compare matches I compare them to other like matches. So, I would compare an ECW clusterfuck with the Nasty Boyz vs. Foley and Maxx Payne from Spring Stampede 94 , but not Magnum vs. Tully. The Stampede match was better than any ECW brawl I've ever seen. Magnum/Tully could be compared to a HiaC match because they are cage matches.

And when I compare wrestling matches, I compare them to other wrestling matches... regardless of the gimmick. Sometimes the gimmick enahnces the match, sometimes it takes away.

 

 

 

I guess we'll just disagree on this one.

 

 

I don't lump all gimmick matches into one ball, it's not really fair to certain matches.

Once again, ultimately, it comes down to being a wrestling match. Sometimes the gimmick enhances, sometimes it takes away.

Is it fair to punish the guy involved in a match with a shitty gimmick by comparing it to a non-gimmick match? I don't think so. I don't really like strap/bullrope/chain matches because I've only seen two that I actually enjoyed (Vader/Sting and Austin/Savio, haven't seen JBL/Eddy), but I'll try to look at them in the context of other like matches. It can be like damning them with faint praise in this case. because for the most part I'd say that a certain match was good for a strap match, but sucks when held up to most others. I try not to punish the guys for being saddled with a bad gimmick, and will praise them if they rise above it and actually entertain me.

 

 

A bull rope match generally speaking is not going to be as good or as exciting as a HiaC match (although the last few HiaCs haven't been particularilly great, but that is mostly because the wrong guys are being put in the match [HHH, Nash at 44 or so, HBK at 39 years old and unable to take the bumps that made the original one great, Brock, Taker at 39, etc...]) because of the limitations of the gimmick.

What would you rather watch... a Taker-HHH HIAC or an Eddie-Benoit Bullrope match?

 

Ultimately, it is the wrestlers who determine how good the match is or if the gimmick is used properly.

What I'd rather watch is imaterial. I'd rather watch a lot of matches that aren't as technically sound as others because I find them more entertaining. That being said Eddy and Benoit would most likely have the ability to rise above a bad gimmick, where as HHH and Taker would most likely sink a good one.

 

 

In HiaC you can do all types of spots that cannot be done in a bull rope match. Same with a ladder match. One could argue that it is easier to have a good/more exciting ladder match than a bull rope match because you can take the big bumps and sick ladder shots and such, where as with a bull rope match you need intensity and palpable hatred between the opponents to make it work which is harder to come by than two guys willing to kill themselves by taking sick bumps.

The JBL-Eddie Bullrope match was better than the Edge-Christian ladder match. I could name more such as HHH-Y2J HIAC, Taker-Mankind HIAC, etc. but the point remains... it is not the gimmick's fault if the workers can't incorporate the gimmick in a meaningful way and sometimes it isn't the worker's fault if the gimmick prevents them from having a 5 star match.

 

Also, sick bumps may be entertaining but they don't necessarily make for a great match. Hell, CZW and other feds have proven that time and again.

 

Sick bumps don't make a match good, they can make it memorable (Foley/Taker), but when intergrated into a match, such as a ladder match or a HiaC match in a way that makes sense they so enhance it. In the 1st HiaC it made sense for Shawn to climb the cage. Taker was kicking the shit out of him, Shawn came back, hit his finish, Taker no sold it and then beat the shit out of him some more outside the cage. And the way they got to the door opening was brilliant. Shawn bumped into the camera man a few times which got him pissed and later went over and kicked the shit out of him. As they are removing him from the cage, Shawn, who's finish had just been no sold runs for the door. On the outside Taker is blocking the aisle to the locker room, so Shawn has really no choie but to climb up the cage just to get away from Taker. Taker follows, back drops Shawn out of a piledriver attempt, press slams him, and punches him over the edge of the cage. Then he stompshis hands and Shawn takes the biggest bump of the match. It all built to one 8' drop onto a table.

 

Where as Foley/Taker started out with Foley inexplicably climbing the cage and then getting tossed off. And then rather than realizing that being on top of the cage with Taker is a bad idea, as evidenced by HiaC 1 and the fact that he just got thrown 16' through a table he climbs back up only to get thrown through the cage. it made no sense in terms of the match and made Foley look like he was stupid and crazy, I suppose the latter was the intention though.

 

I can compare those two matched easily, but can't really compare that to Shawn/Bret: WM 12 other than the entertainment value to me.

 

I agree with you fully about sick bumps not making a match 5 stars.

 

I would compare Elim. Chamber to War Games in order to assign a star rating to it, becaues they are comprable in terms of rules and setting. I've seen better War Games (97, 89, 91, 92) than any of the three Chamber matches (although I haven't seen the NYR one, but I'm assuming considering the talent in the match that it is probably worse than the first two) and some worse (93, 94, 97 sucked hard and I've read that 95 and 96 were brutal). 

And I would compare these to any multi-person match. I would even compare them to a singles match or tag match. Ultimately, as long as you understand the context you can compare and contrast any match to another.

 

It is what infuriates me about SK more than anything. ***1/2 for "entertaining crap" or *** + * for the angle AFTER the match. They are two different elements. For example, the Eddie-JBL match from JD 04 had a brutal beatdown that Eddie administered to JBL after the match. It worked and was entertaining but when the star rating goes off for me, it goes off when the match is over.

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Elim. Chamber and War Games aren't designed for long term selling, the Chamber especially given that there are 6 guys fighting each other. War Games has more potential for pschology given that you have teams so they could decide to work over one guy's leg or whatever. But if you judged any War Games against Flair/Steamboat you couldn't give a War Games match more than 2 1/2 stars. There is no long term selling, very little in terms of wrestling at all in War Games matches. It's mostly brawling and ramming people's heads into the cage. In the first War Games Dusty puts AA in the figure four and I don't recall AA limping through out the match.

 

I agree with you about SK. If one is going to rate the entertainment value of the entire segment then I can understand adding a * for whatever. But by that logic I guess that Flair/Steamboat would be 6 stars for the Funk angle after Flair wonthe belt back (SK gave it 5 stars).

 

I do read his reviews because I've seen an alwful lot of the stuff and I know how he rates things, so I know what to expect from the stuff I haven't seen. That beign said, I disagree with him an alwful lot on an alwful lot of things. Especially some of his editorializing, like saying that Vince killed Owen and that HBK is the anti-Christ out of the ring, when in reality Vince played an inadvertant part in the death of Owen and Shawn was just a prick, not pure evil.

 

I can understand why you wouldn't want to assign 5 stars to a RR match, but I don't see where a good comaprison can be made to Flair/Steamboat. Flair can't really have any long term selling in the match, besides exaustion because he got beat up by 20 different guys in all different ways. In the 2/3 falls match Steamer worked the arm and Flair the leg, that's very straight forward. In RR 92 Flair just got his ass kicked. It's totally different because the match is totally different.

You just gave examples of differences between the two matches. There are also similarities. Comparisons can be found. Both matches have weaknesses that can detract from it.

 

On another note, of course they are different. It still doesn't mean you can't compare the two.

Sure all matches have weaknesses that detract from them if you look hard enough. I can see comparing entertainment value but comparing the quality is unfair.

[goodhelmet]

Some Guy...

Is it fair to punish the guy involved in a match with a shitty gimmick by comparing it to a non-gimmick match?

Who is being punished?

 

If the $hitty gimmick makes the match sub-standard then so be it.

 

I don't really like strap/bullrope/chain matches because I've only seen two that I actually enjoyed (Vader/Sting and Austin/Savio, haven't seen JBL/Eddy), but I'll try to look at them in the context of other like matches. It can be like damning them with faint praise in this case. because for the most part I'd say that a certain match was good for a strap match, but sucks when held up to most others. I try not to punish the guys for being saddled with a bad gimmick, and will praise them if they rise above it and actually entertain me.

You mentioned the Vader-Sting and Savio-Austin matches so if they can make it work, why can't others? I'll throw JBL-Eddie on there as well since I enjoyed it more than Savio-Austin. It is up to the workers to make it work. In some cases, you have classics like the Vader-Sting matches.

 

I feel all of the HIAC matches are overrated except one... Brock-Taker, which is underrated. Who's fault is that? The workers of course. Maybe a strap match isn't usually entertaining or whatever because there are bad wrestlers performing the matches or good performers giving bad performances.

 

What I'd rather watch is imaterial.

It makes all the difference in the world. When I was a kid, I wanted to see Hulk Hggan hulk up. Now, I don't. I expect something different from the product. You had the casual fans who came and went with the Attitude era. You have people now more engrossed with storylines and crap than the actual matches.

 

I'd rather watch a lot of matches that aren't as technically sound as others because I find them more entertaining.

It really is a matter of what you want out of your wrestling experience. If you want "quality" wrestling then you should prolly be able to elaborate what makes a quality match based on certain criteria (execution of moves, logical progression, does the match make sense?).

 

If it is for entertainment value then that is more subjective. I am entertained by quality wrestling. I love good brawls as well if they are logical... Eddie-JBL or Liger-Samurai for example.

These matches can be compared to other matches. Why are we able to proclaim a match a MOTY if it needs a seperate category? Does that mean that any immick match wasn't really a MOTY because it has its own category? Of course not, a good-great match will shine through regardless of the gimmick. The gimmick will work for you or against you depending on the wrestlers.

 

I can compare those two matched easily, but can't really compare that to Shawn/Bret: WM 12 other than the entertainment value to me.

Yes you can. Does one match make sense while the other one doesn't? Did they both make sense? Was the execution in each match good or bad? Does the ending take away from either match? Were there any blown spots?

 

Asking these questions makes it easy to compare any match. For cage matches, you might be able to do a compare and contrast with more depth but any two matches can be compared to each other.

 

I think Funk-Jumbo from '76 is one of the best matches I have ever seen yet it happened thirty years ago. I would be more than willing to compare it to any match form any era. In fact, it has so much staying power that Jumbo-Tenryu incorporated a spot from that match into their '89 match and it made sense. I can compare those matches. I can compare matches from Japan with matches from the United States. I can compare that match from 76 to a match from 92 to a match from 2004. It can be done.

 

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Elim. Chamber and War Games aren't designed for long term selling

Actually, War games and Elim Chamber are completely different in their goals. With the Elim Chamber, it is a glorifed overbooked piece of crap that looks cool. The WarGames is a double cage where the intent is to make the other team give up... the ultimate teamwork match. In the Elim Chamber, the goal is to be the last man standing after scoring a victory by pinfall or submission... every man for themselves, no teams. Yet because they both happen to be in cage structures, you can compare them to each other but jot other gimmick matches? These matches are different as night and day in scope, what they set out to accomplish, how they arew worked and how the wrestlers should think. Now, I agree they can be compared but not for the reasons I think you compare them.

 

the Chamber especially given that there are 6 guys fighting each other.

Whoa... the Chamber should involve long-term selling esp. when two of the wrestlers have fought for the entire match and the 6th guy comes in. If one of the first guys had his arm beaten to hell he should be selling it by the time the 6th guy comes in. If he isn't, that isn't the gimmick's limitation but the worker's limitation.

 

But if you judged any War Games against Flair/Steamboat you couldn't give a War Games match more than 2 1/2 stars.

I'll have to rewatch the Wargames matches to see if that is true. Then again, I don't think I have ever seen a Wargames that was a ***** match.

 

In the first War Games Dusty puts AA in the figure four and I don't recall AA limping through out the match.

If Arn no-sold it then that would be to the detriment of the match.

 

 

Sure all matches have weaknesses that detract from them if you look hard enough. I can see comparing entertainment value but comparing the quality is unfair.

This is the statement I disagree with the most. The quality is something that can be evaluated and looked at objectively. The entertainment value is the most subjective part!!!! It is why you can make statements such as...

I'd rather watch a lot of matches that aren't as technically sound as others because I find them more entertaining.

.

 

You know a match may be a better match but yet you enjoy a sub-standard match because of the entertainment value. The part I won't argue with you on is what entertains you. This is why I am able to watch a movie but understand another movie may be better but I would not argue which movie was more entertaining.

 

 

Loss...

I really do, and on the surface it makes sense, but when we have seen good-great matches with the strap/chain/bullrope like Sting/Vader or Austin/Savio, I think it's fair to hold others to the same standard.

Yeah.

[Tim Cooke]

I want to add a lot more later but am rushed for time.

 

I watched Wargames 92 last night in preparation for Wargames 94 which I hope to see later this week. I agree about the Wargames 92 > Flair/Steamboat but then again, most of the Flair stuff just doesn't hold up very well.

 

You can compare any wrestling match. The only criteria is that the match is worked. If it is a shoot, then you can't.

 

To come up with a Top 5 Matches of 2004, I had to take into consideration the following matches:

 

Kawada/Hashimoto (2/22)

Danielson/Homicide (4/24)

JBL/Eddy (5/16)

Tamura/Ito (8/18)

Danielson/Joe (10/2)

Punk/Joe (10/16)

 

The first is a Japanese heavyweight match. The second is a heel vs. face US match. The third in a WWE main event style match. The fourth is a shoot style match. The fifth is a US heavyweight match. Same with the sixth. Regardless of styles, they can all be compared.

 

It is easier to compare two matches with a similiar style or gimmick but that doesn't mean you can't compare two complete opposites.

 

1988 is an example of two matches at different ends of the spectrum. Takada/Yamazaki from 8/13 and Jumbo/Tenyru from 10/22. Both MOTYC. But which is better? Only way to find out it to compare and since they both instill the basic fundamentals of pro wrestling, it can be done even though one is based in a shoot style and one is based in a traditional Japanese heavyweight style.

 

Oh and I agree that Wargames 92 BLOWS AWAY every HIAC.

 

Tim