Dave Meltzer stuff

[kjh]

 

This notion that the match stinks, seems to be the same notion that wrestling has changed and without speed and huge athletic spots it sucks.

 

No, people thought the match stunk at the time. That isn't a new notion. If there has been a change is that at least in some circles, there's a greater appreciation for match layout, psychology, selling and storytelling than there used to be, so even matches that lack speed and a diversity of offense get praised for what they do well, which I personally think is a good thing.

[Steenalized]

Smart fans thought it stunk at the time. I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of people watching on their TVs or who were in attendance didn't think it stunk. The reanalysis of the match as an actually good, effective piece of wrestling is recent from what I know.

[Grimmas]

 

 

This notion that the match stinks, seems to be the same notion that wrestling has changed and without speed and huge athletic spots it sucks.

 

No, people thought the match stunk at the time. That isn't a new notion. If there has been a change is that at least in some circles, there's a greater appreciation for match layout, psychology, selling and storytelling than there used to be, so even matches that lack speed and a diversity of offense get praised for what they do well, which I personally think is a good thing.

 

Maybe some circles at the time thought it stunk, but it wasn't the generally consensus among fans.

 

There isn't a change towards math layout, psychology and selling, those have ALWAYS been what makes a great wrestler. Even if a lot of people are sidetracked from that way of thinking, doesn't make it true.

[Loss]

Andre-Hogan was called a bad match at the time and that's because it was a bad match. The layout was pretty good and it was an epic series of moments like the staredown, bodyslam and finish. Whoever laid it out deserves credit. But as far as how the two participants executed it, I can't think of much good to say. I always think of that horrible piledriver reversal on the floor that some of you would rightfully rip to shreds if it happened in a Ric Flair or Shawn Michaels match.

 

If Hogan and Andre called it in the ring, that speaks well to their ability to think on their feet and create a match that worked for the audience. But if thinking was all it took to be a great wrestler, we would all be GOAT candidates.

[Grimmas]

Andre-Hogan was called a bad match at the time and that's because it was a bad match. The layout was pretty good and it was an epic series of moments like the staredown, bodyslam and finish. Whoever laid it out deserves credit. But as far as how the two participants executed it, I can't think of much good to say. I always think of that horrible piledriver reversal on the floor that some of you would rightfully rip to shreds if it happened in a Ric Flair or Shawn Michaels match.

 

If Hogan and Andre called it in the ring, that speaks well to their ability to think on their feet and create a match that worked for the audience. But if thinking was all it took to be a great wrestler, we would all be GOAT candidates.

I'm not saying it's an all-time classic, just that it is a good match.

 

My main point was that selling, psychology, story telling, timing, etc.. have always been what is the most important in wrestling. That has not changed, even if people advocate innovation.

[Matt D]

I would still qualify that and I hate qualifying things.

 

I think that selling and psychology and storytelling and body language and what not are most important. I understand that other people feel differently and have always felt differently. Wrestling is art. It's subjective.

 

I think it's fair to say that much of the smart community valued "action" more than those other factors in the 80s. Some of us think they were wrong to. Some of us don't. We've been around this circle.

 

Of course, then John will come in and say that what i just said about much of the smart community valuing "action" isn't true because some people valued the other things more back then. So we can go around in that circle too.

[goodhelmet]

Very few of us here actually watched it live. Everyone I talked to walked away from that show knowing that Savage vs. Steamboat ruled and for the main event, well... Hogan slammed Andre! It really did feel anti-climactic live. Then you get your edition of PWI and they knew the match stunk and all the talk was on Savage-Steamboat. There are good Hogan matches worthy of praise. This isn't one of them. Memorable moment... bad match.

[Childs]

I watched WMIII live on a closed circuit screen at the Baltimore Convention Center and I will say that, though my 10-year-old self thought Steamboat-Savage was the most exciting match, Hogan-Andre in no way felt anti-climactic. It came off as the battle of the titans it was supposed to be, and the crowd popped huge for it.

 

I still think it was a good match, with the near fall setting the early tone, Hogan selling his ass off and the iconic climax. The piledriver shit on floor was the only thing bad about it. I'm not sure what else those two guys could have done, given their physical limitations.

[MJH]

Rather than good or bad (for the record I lean towards the latter), I think it's easier to just say Hogan/Andre was superbly effective. Kinda like... One Direction split up, Cowell wants Harry to be a big solo act, and some rent-a-songwriter writes a song that goes on to break all records as a single (and its resulting album) and the lad becomes the biggest solo act since Michael Jackson. It doesn't have to be God Only Knows, and almost certainly wouldn't be, but one couldn't argue that it's perfect for its intention.

[cm funk]

I'd rather watch two big guys have a "slow, lumbering match" in front of 70,000+ people screaming their heads off than 2 dudes doing a bunch of flippy dos in front of 50 people chanting how awesome it is. Even more than that, I'd have liked to see Andre pile all those 50 people up and sit on them.

 

This

[stomperspc]

There have been many wrestlers who have gotten over because they did one or two things really well. There have been wrestlers who haven’t gotten over without doing anything particularly well just because of the way they were booked! A wrestler with extraordinary athleticism who can harness that athleticism in a positive manner in the ring can be valuable to a promotion and can get over even if he has nothing else going for him. A wrestler with a great sense of psychology and storytelling can get over big even if he is a subpar athlete, so long as he uses his strengths to make up for his weaknesses.

 

I don’t think one aspect is more important than the other. My guess would be the greatest wrestlers generally are strong on multiple fronts. There are definitely some guys that made it because they were really, really good at one or two things, but I’d imagine they are the exceptions. I guess we will get a clearer picture once the GWE poll is complete, but that’s my sense. In the end, there are a bunch of tools/attributes. A wrestler can mix & match them any number of ways and find success.

[goodhelmet]

Rather than good or bad (for the record I lean towards the latter), I think it's easier to just say Hogan/Andre was superbly effective. Kinda like... One Direction split up, Cowell wants Harry to be a big solo act, and some rent-a-songwriter writes a song that goes on to break all records as a single (and its resulting album) and the lad becomes the biggest solo act since Michael Jackson. It doesn't have to be God Only Knows, and almost certainly wouldn't be, but one couldn't argue that it's perfect for its intention.

 

Effective is a good word.

[flyonthewall2983]

I recently watched the Classic Albums episode on Def Leppard's Hysteria. I'm rephrasing this a little, but there's a part where the singer is recalling something the producer said about how anything sounding too "busy" musically will just be reduced to noise in the kind of big arenas they were playing in. To me that's the difference between where the crowd was during the Steamboat/Savage match and the Hogan/Andre match. I think a good deal of the crowd was invested in Savage/Steamboat of course, but the tit-for-tat between the two of them didn't feel as conducive to such a large crowd compared to the larger-than-life nature of Hogan/Andre.

[Blazer]

I watched WMIII live on a closed circuit screen at the Baltimore Convention Center and I will say that, though my 10-year-old self thought Steamboat-Savage was the most exciting match, Hogan-Andre in no way felt anti-climactic. It came off as the battle of the titans it was supposed to be, and the crowd popped huge for it.

 

I still think it was a good match, with the near fall setting the early tone, Hogan selling his ass off and the iconic climax. The piledriver shit on floor was the only thing bad about it. I'm not sure what else those two guys could have done, given their physical limitations.

 

This. I saw it live, at age 14, at a closed circuit location outside of Chicago. The entire event was epic. Andre/Hogan was monumental. Nobody walked out of that venue thinking that the match "stunk". I thought the piledriver spot on the floor was bad, and there was also a spot where Andre missed a headbutt in the corner brutally. He was supposed to miss Hogan and hit the turnbuckle, but came up short. All in all, you looked past those silly moments at the big picture. It was monumental. You can't try to review something 28 years later completely out of context in so many ways of the era and say the match stunk. If you lived it, you appreciate the opportunity to have seen it happen. It's a great memory I have of my adolescence.

[Strand Peanut]

I've always thought Dave's point about re watching was contextual. You can see that by how he structures the HOF ballot.

 

The example I often use is the Flair / Steamboat trilogy from 1989. Matches that people enjoyed then and now. But watch the build, and the presentation.. today, it just seems like something from the 80's.

 

You'd miss how out of touch much of what they did was. Especially in comparison to the WWF.

 

The end run of AWA may be another instructive example. In re watch the promotion was doing much better than commonly held wisdom suggested. But in the context of the time, it's easy to see why the reputation began, and was warranted.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Very few of us here actually watched it live. Everyone I talked to walked away from that show knowing that Savage vs. Steamboat ruled and for the main event, well... Hogan slammed Andre! It really did feel anti-climactic live. Then you get your edition of PWI and they knew the match stunk and all the talk was on Savage-Steamboat. There are good Hogan matches worthy of praise. This isn't one of them. Memorable moment... bad match.

I watched it live and it was fucking great.

[goodhelmet]

You don't count.

[Strand Peanut]

It's not about Andre / Hogan being a great match. That's subjective. (Johnny, once again, is gloriously right.)

 

But no one who wrote about wrestling in 1987 was going to give that match any love. It's essentially their death knell. A tipping point made real. Actualized for them as play. And they knew it. Fugg yes, people hated that match!

[C.S.]

Andre/Hogan is much like Rock/Hogan and Sting/HHH...a blast to watch for those who were "there" but probably doesn't hold up in subsequent years.

[cm funk]

Andre/Hogan is much like Rock/Hogan and Sting/HHH...a blast to watch for those who were "there" but probably doesn't hold up in subsequent years.

 

I've rewatched Andre/Hogan and Rock/Hogan many times and they totally hold up for me. The atmosphere, the crowd, the "larger than life" characters, the energy........both those matches are really fun on replay

 

too soon to rate Sting/HHH.....but I really liked it on first watch and suspect I will like it on replay

[C.S.]

I've rewatched Andre/Hogan and Rock/Hogan many times and they totally hold up for me. The atmosphere, the crowd, the "larger than life" characters, the energy........both those matches are really fun on replay

 

too soon to rate Sting/HHH.....but I really liked it on first watch and suspect I will like it on replay

 

I should probably clarify what I meant... I was mainly referring to people who "weren't there at the time" and are only watching these matches years after the fact. (Obviously, that doesn't really apply to Sting/HHH...yet.) Yeah, my post wasn't clear at all.

 

I'm not big on rewatching matches, but I suspect I'd have the same reaction you did. If I liked something at the time, even if it was from when I was a kid, I tend to still like it now because the nostalgia factor fills me with good memories and makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

[sek69]

It's interesting to read the last few pages of everyone's opinions of WM3 when my point was people watching it in the future without context will most likely have a more negative opinion than someone here would because I'm sure everyone posting here either followed the build as it happened or went back to watch it all.

 

I liken it to when people started having more access to Japanese wrestling when the internet took off. You can watch individual matches and appreciate the quality, but you lose something if you don't know the backstory.

[efrim]

Even in a vacuum, I think Andre confers a huge bonus to WM3. The first time I watched it on VHS as a kid I didn't know jack about the build, but the mere presence of Andre is so captivating. Even old and broken down as he was, I was amazed by him.

[jdw]

 

 

Dave Meltzer ‏@davemeltzerWON 21m

21 minutes ago

Few matches I've seen so different live vs. watching on TV as Sting vs. HHH. God did that commentary ruin a bout with super heat

 

I know this is a surprise to nobody that commentary sucked but it really does explain why there are so many different spectrum of opinion on this match.

 

 

It's kind of funny, but everyone in Hoback's living room loved the Sting vs Trip match. That was not just the teenager, but also all of the adults felt it was an entertaining spectacle. We really could have given two shits about the announcing, since we all talked all over it while the match was going on.

 

I get announcing being an issue while watching Raw, or even a normal PPV, or even watching a PPV solo. Lord knows I bitch and moan about shitty announcing on old stuff, and bitched and moaned when my brain was melting watching Raw & Nitro & SmackDown & Thunder & Joey Styles sucking on ECW Bullshit TV Shows. But Mania for most is a group thing, and no one cares while it's going on about the announcing. A group of fans watching the show in most living rooms (or at bars) provides the announcing.

[jdw]

Do you think 35 year old Dave (he's 55 now) would of rated the Diva's tag as ***, especially after all the years of AJW he's seen over the years?

 

35 year old Dave and I were sitting in Yokohama Arena watching this card 20 years to the week before this year's Mania:

 

http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/japan/women/ajw/queen.html#iii

 

Setting aside the "shootboxing" match in the prelims, I'd be surprised if he would rate the Divas match *close* to any of the other matches, let alone above any of them.

 

The WON with the star ratings for that show appears to be online:

 

April 10, 1995 Observer Newsletter: WrestleMania XI in-depth report, Weekly Pro Wrestling show at the Tokyo Dome, major World Championship Wrestling shake-ups, tons more

 

Someone may want to go pull them over for comp.