20 Most Essential Matches (1982-2001)

[World's Worst Man 0]

Rudo, you need to understand that some people don't enjoy wrestling the same way you do. I'm not going to argue whether or not the match got over. The fans were going crazy, it drew a huge PPV and live audience. The match clearly got over, it clearly "worked". And I couldn't care less. I don't care if other people enjoyed it. That doesn't prove it was a good match. It doesn't. In fact, that's a fallacious argument all together. But I have an idea of what good wrestling is to me. It's a fairly general idea that applies to all sorts of wrestling. Hogan vs. Andre was not a good match under that criteria. I could see a problem if I was making stuff up about the match. Or if I bashed that match for something that I praised in another. But that's not really happening. What consitutes good wrestling to me, what "works" for me, was not abundant in that match. Are you going to say I'm wrong? You'd have a rather hard time factually proving that my idea of good wrestling is wrong. Good wrestling isn't a round earth. It's not 1+1. There's no absolute answer.

 

To me, the match sucked. And I'll glady admit it was a huge success. But I won't ever say the quality of wrestling was good.

 

Also, while you make a few good points in the review that I didn't give the match credit for (mainly about the comebacks, I'll have to watch the match again) a lot of the PBP was just such dime-a-dozen stuff. For example

 

"Boot to send Hogan down (which looks great given both guys’ faces and Hogan does a nice job concealing the look-back). Andre clubbing Hogan three times. What I like about this is that all three clubs were different – one was when Andre had Hogans bent/head tucked under his arm, another was when Hogan was standing, and another had Andre holding Hogans hair. It doesn’t seem repetitive because he changes it up each time. Hogans selling of all of these were like he got shot. And in between clubs Andre was looking out into the crowd, taunting Hogan and telling him to get up."

 

I really have a hard time buying something like this as justification for the match being good. You see common stuff like this in almost every single wrestling match. It seems like this is just making a big deal out of something completely normal. If someone wanted to, they could talk up ANY match this way, by making it seem like every standard piece of offense had some great meaning. Again, maybe you dig it, that's cool. But I don't really consider that to be anything special.

[tigeraid 0]

k, I'm kinda late here, and I skimmed through some of the thread... I will freely admit I haven't seen a lot of the Japanese matches listed, but I agree with most of the American matches. Bret/Austin Submission Match still remains my all time favourite match ever.

 

I have to agree with MisawaGQ on this. In terms of scope, in terms of scale, in terms of hype, Hogan/Andre was the Frazier/Ali of the WWF for the longest time. That does not make it a good match. Yes, the selling was done well, yes Andre and Hogan working the crowd was perfect, but the match was sloppy as a whole. Is it an IMPORTANT match? Without a doubt. But not good.

 

Now to play devil's advocate on this idea... what about Joe/Kobashi? It has the same sort of flavour, in that it was mostly a stiff spot-fest, not much in the way of psychology, very much a hard no-selling "fighting spirit" style match... and yet the atmosphere was unbelievable, the crowd was insane, and every move looked BRUTAL.... Does it suck or rule at the same level Hogan/Andre does?

[World's Worst Man 0]

Joe vs. Kobashi had a bit of psychology, mostly based around a story of "2 of the most powerful wrestlers in the world collide". There wasn't a lot of story, but there was enough to where it wasn't a huge, huge problem. I don't recall too many selling problems either. And I wouldn't call it a spot fest either, as the big moves were built to with smaller stuff. But in general, I would agree that it was something of a spectacle match. The selling/build/execution was just really strong, and it had a wee bit of story to it, so I don't think it could be viewed as a "spectacle and nothing else".

[tigeraid 0]

Hmm... But isn't it fair to say that Hogan/Andre was the same "2 of the most powerful wrestlers in the world collide?"

 

Actually, I can answer that. A lot of Hogan/Andre was dominated by Andre, whereas Joebashi was more back and forth. I rescind, sir.

[Guest wildpegasus]

k, I'm kinda late here, and I skimmed through some of the thread... I will freely admit I haven't seen a lot of the Japanese matches listed, but I agree with most of the American matches. Bret/Austin Submission Match still remains my all time favourite match ever.

 

I have to agree with MisawaGQ on this. In terms of scope, in terms of scale, in terms of hype, Hogan/Andre was the Frazier/Ali of the WWF for the longest time. That does not make it a good match. Yes, the selling was done well, yes Andre and Hogan working the crowd was perfect, but the match was sloppy as a whole. Is it an IMPORTANT match? Without a doubt. But not good.

 

Now to play devil's advocate on this idea... what about Joe/Kobashi? It has the same sort of flavour, in that it was mostly a stiff spot-fest, not much in the way of psychology, very much a hard no-selling "fighting spirit" style match... and yet the atmosphere was unbelievable, the crowd was insane, and every move looked BRUTAL.... Does it suck or rule at the same level Hogan/Andre does?

 

It's funny you brought that match up because it was actually one of the matches I was thinking of when I was trying to remember the Hogan vs Andre bout.

I prefer Andre vs Hogan but not by too, too much as Kobashi vs Joe was a good, fun little match. Kobashi vs Joe has more action and I tend to like my action but Andre vs Hogan had more meaning and I like that too.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

MGQ, you say the pacing was terrible, and I disagreed and my PBP showed how they were able to keep the pace at a constant rate and keep the fans' interest through mixing up a variety of moves and when they did the same moves more than once, it was done in a different manner. That's good, smart, work. Hogan concealing his lookback when Andre was about to kick him down from behind isn't necessarily a common thing, as a lot of wrestlers expose the business by blatently turning their head and looking behind them -see their opponent coming towards them- and then face forward and take the shot.

 

The problem with the way you look at wrestling, and I would say that it is "wrong", is that your standard and the wrestlers' standards are different. So the things that you are looking for are not what the wrestlers are looking to do, nor is it really what the live audience (who the wrestlers play off of) are looking for either. So it's unfair and unreasonable. It's akin to looking at Schindlers List and saying it was awful because it didn't make you laugh, or watching The Naked Gun and saying it sucked because what the characters did in it didn't make sense and wasn't logical. Can't you see the problem in "not caring if the audience enjoyed it" when their goal (and every wrestlers goal) was for the audience to enjoy it and the fact that they successfully got the crowd to progressively get hotter and brought their emotions up and down throughout, and not factoring that into your evaluation? But let's hold it against a guy who could barely move that he didn't do a whole lot of big moves instead of looking at how he was able to use his limited movements and how is partner sold and worked around him to make a convincing domination period which got the crowd more behind Hogan than they were originally.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Maybe we can just say the match was a great one for the audience and poor for MisawaGQ's tastes.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Well that was obvious.

[Special K 0]

Rudo should recap every match ever. Or at least pursue a career in writing. Shit, me cleaning up my apartment would sound more epic than Godzilla vs. Gamera through his eyes. That's not an insult, that was, as they say, a masterful "word picture".

 

Now if Rudo would recap GOOD matches. Do Thunderqueen!

[World's Worst Man 0]

MGQ, you say the pacing was terrible, and I disagreed and my PBP showed how they were able to keep the pace at a constant rate and keep the fans' interest through mixing up a variety of moves and when they did the same moves more than once, it was done in a different manner. That's good, smart, work. Hogan concealing his lookback when Andre was about to kick him down from behind isn't necessarily a common thing, as a lot of wrestlers expose the business by blatently turning their head and looking behind them -see their opponent coming towards them- and then face forward and take the shot.

 

The problem with the way you look at wrestling, and I would say that it is "wrong", is that your standard and the wrestlers' standards are different. So the things that you are looking for are not what the wrestlers are looking to do, nor is it really what the live audience (who the wrestlers play off of) are looking for either. So it's unfair and unreasonable. It's akin to looking at Schindlers List and saying it was awful because it didn't make you laugh, or watching The Naked Gun and saying it sucked because what the characters did in it didn't make sense and wasn't logical. Can't you see the problem in "not caring if the audience enjoyed it" when their goal (and every wrestlers goal) was for the audience to enjoy it and the fact that they successfully got the crowd to progressively get hotter and brought their emotions up and down throughout, and not factoring that into your evaluation? But let's hold it against a guy who could barely move that he didn't do a whole lot of big moves instead of looking at how he was able to use his limited movements and how is partner sold and worked around him to make a convincing domination period which got the crowd more behind Hogan than they were originally.

 

Your whole argument is based around a fallacy. A lot of people thinking something is good, doesn't make it so. And regardless of that, I'm talking about the quality of the wrestling, bell to bell. Why should I care if the audience liked it? Why should anyone care? People have their own ideas of what good wrestling is. Some people don't care about Kurt Angle's shitty selling and match structure. So what am I going to do, force them to think it's important? You say the wrestlers' standards are different. Well, their standard is to make money. If they could make money holding an armbar for 20 minutes of a 20 minute match, they'd do it. Is that good wrestling? It would be successful wrestling, yes. To me, quality doesn't equal success and vice-versa. And that's pretty much the end of it.

 

My standards can apply to any sort of wrestling. Your movie analogy was just completely irrelevant. Looking at Schindler's List and not liking it because it wasn't funny would be akin to looking at Hogan-Andre and not liking it because it wasn't stiff and didn't have tons of nearfalls. Meaning someone is only a fan of a certain genre, and they don't think anything outside of it is good. Obviously, that isn't going on here. Two of the basic things I look for in a wrestling match (story/execution) are so general that any type of pro-wrestling can have them. A story in some king's road match is going to be different than a story in a 1980's WWF match. But they can both have a great story. So however you want to justify my dislike of the match, the fact is that my standards take into a account that not every wrestling match is going to be wrestled in the same way or in the same style. Having seen a bunch of 1980's WWF stuff, and knowing what the style was, I can say that Hogan vs. Andre wasn't even close to being good compared to the rest. So now it's clear that I'm comparing the match to its peers, rather than comparing it to some impossible to top match in a totally different style.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I haven't seen Andre vs. Hogan in a long time, and, to be honest, I have no real desire to see it again. I do remember being pleasently surprised by how it wasn't as bad as a lot of people said. It wasn't good or great by any stretch of the imagination, though it was clearly good enough that it 'worked' for the live crowd, For me, this is one of those matches that gets a little overrated simply because it wasn't as bad as a lot of people expected it to be. If you like this match, or even love it, and can explain why, then that's fine. If you disliked the match or even hated it, and can explain why, then that's fine as well. If you try to tell someone that their opinion of the match is wrong, then you're wasting your time, because a persons opinion is dependent on personal taste. However, challenging their reasoning for reaching that opinion, that's fair game.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Your whole argument is based around a fallacy. A lot of people thinking something is good, doesn't make it so. And regardless of that, I'm talking about the quality of the wrestling, bell to bell. Why should I care if the audience liked it? Why should anyone care?

 

It's not fallacious because THE INTENT of the wrestlers is to make the audience like it, and it is obvious that the audience liked Hogan/Andre. They don't go out to have what you define as a "good wrestling match" yet you judge them using good wrestling match standards. That is unfair and unreasonable. You hold it against them that they used few holds, BUT IT WORKED, so how can you fault them for it? The "few holds" point is irrelevant in the context of the match. If the match failed to entertain the crowd, then you can say "the lack of holds hurt the match", but in this case and context, it clearly didn't.

 

People have their own ideas of what good wrestling is. Some people don't care about Kurt Angle's shitty selling and match structure. So what am I going to do, force them to think it's important?

 

It's only important when it's important. Kurt Angle has gotten by on what you call shitty selling and I can't think of a time when it severely hurt his matches and -in fact- it has more often than not helped him greatly. There is no need to force people to think something is important, usually if it's important then it's pretty recognizable because the live crowd doesn't react to it.

 

You say the wrestlers' standards are different. Well, their standard is to make money. If they could make money holding an armbar for 20 minutes of a 20 minute match, they'd do it. Is that good wrestling? It would be successful wrestling, yes. To me, quality doesn't equal success and vice-versa. And that's pretty much the end of it.

 

Good Wrestling and Successful Wrestling are one-in-the-same. I don't know what you call wrestling, but I don't think it is actually the same as professional wrestling. It's more akin to a really physical dance.

 

My standards can apply to any sort of wrestling.

 

Except "successful wrestling", it seems.

 

Your movie analogy was just completely irrelevant. Looking at Schindler's List and not liking it because it wasn't funny would be akin to looking at Hogan-Andre and not liking it because it wasn't stiff and didn't have tons of nearfalls. Meaning someone is only a fan of a certain genre, and they don't think anything outside of it is good. Obviously, that isn't going on here.

 

Obviously, you missed my point. My point wasn't about genres, it was about INTENT. Speilberg didn't set out to make a comedy, so faulting it by using a standard he didn't even intend on appealing to doesn't make sense.

 

Two of the basic things I look for in a wrestling match (story/execution) are so general that any type of pro-wrestling can have them.

 

But neither are absolute in being necessary. Story and Move Execution are but tools to accomplish one goal. That you don't consider that goal is a fundamental problem with how you evaluate wrestling. So my movie analogy becomes relevant in this regard - if the director wasn't looking to make people laugh, a criticism of "it wasn't funny" becomes moot.

[Special K 0]

Um, Andre/Hogan isn't a very good match. A historic match? Yes. Better than expected? Yes. And while I'm answering my own question.. Totally watchable? Yes. But It's not a good wrestling match. Really.

 

If you're going by crowd heat, any Tokyo Dome show kills WWE. Or with my limited experience, Lucha crowds are even crazier. I've seen a couple Lucha matches that sucked, and people were literally crying in the stands.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I never said it was a very good match. It's not close to Misawa/Kobashi vs. Taue/Kawada. I don't think it is awful. I think the match was "good", I think it worked and accomplished everything they wanted to accomplish, I personally love the match and can and have watched it countless times because I thoroughly enjoy it. Does everyone have to like it? No. Does it deserve to be shit on? No. I think the two guys gave tremendous performances and they deserve credit for what they accomplished in that match. I think the way they varied their limited offense, the way Hogan sold, the way they built spots -these very simple spots- and were able to get so much out of them, I think they deserve soem credit for their work. I think they did probably the best job they could have done given each others' limitations, and the way they worked the crowd was very well done. I don't think it should written off as two guys who couldn't do a lot of moves and made for this awful match. I think, perspective-wise, that's looking at it the wrong way. If you watch this match and have a check-list by your side to tick off and because it didn't have this and this and this it was bad, then you shouldn't be watching this match, period.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Crowd heat is an indicator of the work done in the match. Something had to make the crowd hot, and the vast majority of the time, it's the wrestlers in the match. Sure there will be an exception to the rule, but for most part, it's the case that the crowd reacts to the match. Hogan/Andre started off with a hot crowd, and people will point and say "They had it easy, they could have done anything and the crowd would have reacted", which is just conjecture because it's very-well possible they could have killed the crowd if they performed poorly (which they didn't). If Hogan/Andre started off with a hot crowd and that crowd stayed the same or went down a bit in excitement, then the criticisms of the match in regards to pacing and moves would be valid because something had to have hurt the crowd and that reasonably could have been it. However, Andre/Hogan was able to work the crowd up into being MORE crazy, which is a reflection of good work and a good match.

 

A "good" match with no crowd heat isn't a good match. It failed to do what a match is supposed to do. To me, if a match occured infront of no people -just two guys going through the motions leading to a pinfall- it, by definition, is not a wrestling match. The crowd is an integral element, otherwise it's just choreography.

[Dark Age 0]

Are there not exceptions to this rule, as well, though? If say, two guys go out and put on what SHOULD be considered a very good match under MisawaGQ's rules, but the crowd shits on them. See: Benoit/Malenko, Hog Wild 96. The crowd, in this situation, had no intentions of liking the match. Nothing Benoit/Malenko could do would change their opinions. Does this make it a bad match, or an exception? Should Benoit and Malenko have changed what they were doing to correspond with what the crowd was enjoying(see prior matches, who was over, etc)? But what if the crowd still doesn't react then?

 

What if a match, like the above, is put in front of a crowd which is never going to give it a chance? What if a crowd's reacition isn't it in response to the match quality, but moreso BECAUSE they are using the rules Misawa used. Hogan and Andre have the same match (which I, too, think is a good one) in Ring Of Honour. The crowd has no intentions of liking it because it doesn't fit in with their idea of good wrestling. What then? Does the match's audience determine what rules the match should follow, or should there be none at all?

 

I know you have been a critic of ROH in the past. Do the matches from this promotion work because they are what the audience expects (hence they are good wrestling) or is their audience something different entirely (hard to judge if it works for the audience when, as with above, they aren't brought in to the match, but instead know exactly how they will react - dueling chants, etc).

 

For the record, I agree with Rudo 100%. I will admit to using "rules" myself, in the past, but ever since you've been mentioning this at length, I completely got where you're coming from. I still find myself falling in to the usual traps in regards to watching matches, but hopefully, over time, things will change.

 

Would I be right to say Taker/Angle was a defining factor for your strong belief in what is/isn't good wrestling? Or have you always felt this way and I've just missed it?

[tigeraid 0]

Again, to play devil's advocate...

 

Britney Spears is popular. Justin Timberlake is popular. Survivor is the most popular show on the goddamn planet. Does that make them "good" ?

[Special K 0]

I never said it was a very good match. It's not close to Misawa/Kobashi vs. Taue/Kawada. I don't think it is awful. I think the match was "good", I think it worked and accomplished everything they wanted to accomplish, I personally love the match and can and have watched it countless times because I thoroughly enjoy it. Does everyone have to like it? No. Does it deserve to be shit on? No. I think the two guys gave tremendous performances and they deserve credit for what they accomplished in that match

 

Nobody's debating your enjoyment of the match! Nobody;s pulling a Chris Coey and saying "if you like this match, you're an idiot". Andre/Hogan. again had a better match than anyone could've expected.

I enjoyed the match when I watched it. I have no desire to see it again. I'm not one to rank matches, but who cares? You enjoyed Andre/Hogan. It drew a huge crowd. You think it's a good match, I don't. You did a pbp that would make JR blush, and I still don't see it. Let it stand.

 

EDIT: And if crowd enthusiasm was a determining factor in how good a match was, we'd have Tokyo Dome and Bingo Hall shows and nothing else.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

BUT, what makes wrestling unique is that the goal is to be popular. Music, Art, Theatre, etc. has different objectives. I go deeper into this in my blog ...

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...2&showentry=537

 

I would contend that Malenko/Benoit poorly worked that match because -instead of reacting to the crowd and changing up to be more appealing- they stuck with what they planned and the match failed. Who knows whether the crowd would have gotten more into it, but the fact is, they didn't even try to change it up. Stevie Richards and Tommy Dreamer went into a match where the crowd was dead and couldn't give a flying fuck about what they did and they ended up getting that crowd into it by stiffing each other with kendo stick shots. Benoit/Angle is the perfect example of two workers bring a dead crowd back to life.

 

There are exceptions and I did mention that above, but I think those exceptions come after wrestlers have made different attempts to try and get the reluctant crowd back into it. MGQ's "rules" aren't useless, I think -however- in regards to sufficiency and relevance, they hold less weight than working the crowd (because that's the wrestlers' goals). The stuff MGQ lists in his standards, things like story and execution, are tools wrestlers use to work the crowd, so they are relevant, but only if they work the crowd or fail to.

 

Andre/Hogan in ROH would be different because both Andre and Hogan were smart enough workers to know what would work for one audience may not work for another. That's why Hogan in Japan is different from Hogan in the states. Hogan would throw out things like chain wrestling and more technical stuff to a ROH audience. Whether the ROH audience would be receptive is another matter, but credit should go to Hogan for attempting to appeal to a different audience and adapting.

 

ROH is an interesting matter and could warrant its own discussion in regards who is responsible for the environment which I despise so much.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Would I be right to say Taker/Angle was a defining factor for your strong belief in what is/isn't good wrestling? Or have you always felt this way and I've just missed it?

 

Hogan/Andre was the first match that made me question my then-current views. Then Benoit/Angle, and then Taker/Angle. A gradual process, always evolving.

[World's Worst Man 0]

This is getting to be circular, so I'll just sum up my thoughts. Hogan and Andre worked the right match for that crowd. But they didn't work the right match for me (and no doubt countless others). To the crowd and to people who believe if the masses believe something, it must be true, it was a good match. To me, it was not. It's not a fact, just like you saying it was good isn't a fact. The only facts in this scenario are that it was successful. If that means it was good to you, great. Success doesn't equal quality to me. The two are completely seperate. And you can't make any argument to change that, because "good" is a complete variable from person to person.

 

This argument is about differing standards. That's it. And trying to get someone to change their mind isn't going to happen unless they want to change their mind. That's a fact of life with artforms and media. So that's it. You took exception to me saying it was horrible, you presented your reasons why. I agreed with some points, while others were irrelevant to me. And that's when it should end, because there's nothing more to discuss.

[Guest Velouria]

And I didn't think this thread could get DUMBER.

[chaosrage 0]

I'd like to think that I played a small part in this change Rudo has went through.

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...2entry1368772

[Coffin Surfer 0]

Glad to see you liking Andre/Hogan, WP. Finally, something we can agree on.

 

I don't know how long I've been pimping Hogan/Andre as a pretty good match and it's nice to see even a handful of people enjoying it as well.

[Guest wildpegasus]

Glad to see you liking Andre/Hogan, WP. Finally, something we can agree on.

 

I don't know how long I've been pimping Hogan/Andre as a pretty good match and it's nice to see even a handful of people enjoying it as well.

 

I've been praising Hulk Hogan vs the Macho Man at Mania V as well. In fact, it along with Perfect vs Owen were the matches that won me over as a wrestling fan. Did you do the Deathvalley top 100 project? That was one of the most controversial bouts on there. Big differences in the opinions of it.

 

Man, if this keeps up we're going to be best buds soon.

[Coffin Surfer 0]

" I've been praising Hulk Hogan vs the Macho Man at Mania V as well.

 

Man, if this keeps up we're going to be best buds soon."

 

Hogan/Macho is excellent though watching more Hogan kind of exposes it, namely Macho who is somewhere below Shultz and slightly above Bossman in terms of Hogan opponents(not really that good). They were saving most of his signature throat offense for the finish so he appears to have trouble filling his time until then, the arm bar is o.k. because it's timed well and has a nice pay off but his last run with the chinlock can be patience testing. Hogan always seemed willing to bump for things like Piledriver and protected Suplexes so it's odd he didn't mix up his second run a little more.

 

Still, I love how animated Hogan and Macho are at the beginning, both playing up to the angle and their characters so well. It might also have some of the best stalling ever, I think five minutes pass before Hogan is able to get a punch in, letting Savage really get under your skin before the payoff. I also like how Hogan makes sure everyone understands why he does the things he does, like pointing to his bloodied eye after boot scarping Savage's face just in case the fans couldn't connect the dots. Really fun excellent match that's better than it's often credited for, Hogan especially. Some people complain about the Hulk Up, but I've seen worse from Savage. I saw one match from Memphis where he let Austin Idol hulk up out of it in the first minute, leaving them dick to build towards for the rest of the match.

 

 

"Did you do the Deathvalley top 100 project? That was one of the most controversial bouts on there. Big differences in the opinions of it."

 

I stayed clear of that one. Even during the Scott Keith phase I'm sure most of us went through, I always enjoyed Hogan/Andre. The urgency in Hogan's actions, Andre's subtle character arc, the incredibly smart progressive selling(when Andre's finally down and selling like he's finally hurt, you feel like something really monumental happened and that the match is coming to a finish ), and of course the epic build to the one move Andre can take. I recall Hansen rolling out the bodyslam in his match with Andre a few years prior with little build and a modest reaction but Hogan turned it into one of the most memorable moments of all time. I can understand people not digging the low end aspect of the match but calling it crap is something I can't understand.

 

I'm sure you've seen me pimp them before but I would highly recommend you check out Hogan's work against Shultz, Race, Funk, and the 91 Garden matches against Flair.