Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Jason

Recent WWE vs WWF in the 80's

Recommended Posts

You forgot to mention Hogan didn't have 12 PPVs to work back then.

 

Hogan defies the laws of time!!

 

Well its a huge reason why he was able to hold the title for so long without people getting sick to death of him sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247
You forgot to mention Hogan didn't have 12 PPVs to work back then.

 

Hogan defies the laws of time!!

 

Well its a huge reason why he was able to hold the title for so long without people getting sick to death of him sooner.

Though he Only lost the World title on major Events twice, WM 6 and the KOTR

 

the other times were TV events or special events that don't quite count as PPV's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best promo guys of the 80’s are better at cutting ‘money promo’s’ than the best promo guys of today. From 1997 onwards, promo’s stopped being all about getting people to want to pay to see matches, and they became mostly about getting a reaction from the crowd. Sure, from time to time someone would a cut a promo that was designed to get people to want to see a match, but for the most part, they were all about getting a reaction, or getting a catchphrase over so more merchandise could be shifted. Because promo’s became less and less about drawing money, the wrestlers started doing those kinds of promo’s less and less, and so became far less adept at them than the wrestlers from the 80’s, who didn’t have to worry about getting the live crowd to react, because they all did their promo’s backstage. And with the newer wrestlers, I highly doubt any of them have ever even attempted a money promo, or even know what one is. They’ve been brought up at time when promo’s were all about getting a laugh, rather than getting people emotionally sucked into a match enough that they’d want to pay to see it.

 

Guys from the 80’s generally became so good at money promo’s for two reasons:

 

1: They only ever attempted to cut a money promo, not a sing-along one, and

2: They did them so often. At TV tapings, guys backstage would cut 30+ promos for the house show circuit, hyping up one particular match for the local market.

 

Because they did money promo’s so often, even though it was usually for one match at time, they did them so often that they, with some exceptions, got better and better at them.

 

As it stands today, while the wrestlers seem more fluid on the mic and seem more superstar-like, they just can’t cut a money promo like the wrestlers from the 80’s could. With time, and with more effort given to cutting money promo’s, they could improve, but as long as promo’s are written by hacks who just want to get the crowd to react, all the while ignoring what a promo is meant to be about, the best of the 80’s will blow away the best of 90s’s-00’s in terms of cutting a promo to draw money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ransome
Though he Only lost the World title on major Events twice, WM 6 and the KOTR

 

the other times were TV events or special events that don't quite count as PPV's.

What are you on about? Survivor Series 91 doesn't count as a major pay per view?

 

Of the four times he lost the title (ignoring when he was stripped of it post-Tuesday in Texas), all four were during important events, even (or especially) Saturday Night's Main Event loss to Andre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1985-1988 WWF is my favorite time period in wrestling, EVER. A lot of people crap on 80s WWF because of the lack of quality wrestling and the cartoonish nature of the show. I will freely admit that the NWA had much, much better in-ring action, but WWF just made everything seem so important back then, and hooked me for life. I don't know if it was "money promos" or not that were drawing me in, it was just a feeling, an intangible quality the product had back then. It just seemed everything Vince did during that time period turned to gold. Stick Zeus into the main event =$$$, HonkY Tonk Man headlining B shows= $$$, Jim Duggan headlining MSG against Andre=$$$. I really can't explain it other than everything, every title, every angle, seemed so important then as compared to now. It could be the lack of competetive matches, the lack of big shows that made the bigger shows seem even more important, the general star power, but it all added up to me becoming a fan for life. I've noticed that fans today who rip the WWE for lack of workrate, etc., still fondly remember the 80s, even though the wrestling was even worse back then. I think it proves that smart booking and marketing can be more successful than great wrestling sometimes, or it can mean that nostalgia is all powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247
Though he Only lost the World title on major Events twice, WM 6 and the KOTR

 

the other times were TV events or special events that don't quite count as PPV's.

What are you on about? Survivor Series 91 doesn't count as a major pay per view?

 

Of the four times he lost the title (ignoring when he was stripped of it post-Tuesday in Texas), all four were during important events, even (or especially) Saturday Night's Main Event loss to Andre.

Oh yes forgot that one heh ;) bad Taker fan bad bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss
Workrate is no proven draw.

While this is true, who has ever argued that workrate is a draw? No one that I can recall. There has been the argument that fans are more likely to enjoy a wrestling show with better wrestling matches, but then people get the wrong idea and think "OMGPPLLIKEHOGANBETTERTHANTECHNICALEXHIBITIONS~!" when a great match isn't necessarily a technical exhibition that goes 45 minutes. The whole point of having a great match is to get the crowd involved and give them their money's worth. There's nothing "smarkish" about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

It isn't proven that the crowd appreciates great matches as in workrate. So you can't say it gets the crowd involved and gives them their money worth as in fact. You are contradicting yourself after saying working is no proven draw is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't proven that the crowd appreciates great matches as in workrate (though it seems smarks do). So you can't say it gives them their money worth as in fact.

Then I guess the crowd at the 2003 Royal Rumble gave Chris Benoit a standing ovation for his haircut. People don't applaud someone who doesn't give them their moneysworth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

They could have applauded his effort or they could have applauded his contribution to the great match. You don't know. It isn't proven that great matches draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could have applauded his effort or they could have applauded his contribution to the great match You don't know.

Which would be his workrate they'd be applauding then. They applauded for two reasons: a great match, and, for Benoit, a great effort. Those are two shining examples of workrate getting over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

Wow you really are a moron. Hogan could be in a lengthy match with a fat heel and lose. And they could give a standing ovation for his charisma at the end and for his effort. Effort doesn't equal workrate. You don't know if they applauded for his great effort or his great effort/great match. Workrate isn't a proven draw as I said before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow you really are a moron. Hogan could be in a lengthy match with a fat heel and lose. And they could give a standing ovation for his charisma at the end for his effort. Effort doesn't equal workrate.

It's great to see you had such confidence in your argument that you didn't have to resort to namecalling.

 

Effort is workrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

I have confidence in my argument. You are just a moron. And you are continuing to be one now. Effort is not workrate. You can completely suck but try hard and have no workrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Internet Wrestling Community in general, the World Wrestling Federation in the 1980's are often refferred to as the quote unquote "Glory Days of Wrestling." Personally, I am a fan of the current product that the World Wrestling Entertainment has provided us, and in this thread, I will defend today's WWE - as opposed to the WWF in the 1980's.

 

 

The most commonly brought up issue is the bashing of a certain Paul Michael LeVesque - you may recognize him as Triple H.

Holy fucking god are you pretentious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have confidence in my argument. You are just a moron. And you are continuing to be one now. Effort is not workrate. You can completely suck but try hard and have no workrate.

 

In the case of Benoit's standing ovation at the Rumble, yes that was the fans responding in respect towards his great effort that was workrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

No you don't know for sure. People can cheer Hogan for his effort for example, is that workrate? You no sold the argument that you can have no ability and try and have no workrate. Benoit had workrate in that match and he had effort. But effort does not equal workrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss

First, please refrain from the name calling. This thread can serve without it.

 

Second, workrate *is* effort. HTQ never said that effort produced anything good necessarily, but there have been many examples of fans being won over through hard work. I've seen cases where fans have been hyped to see a match and have felt let down bell-to-bell.

 

Watch HHH/Steiner and Benoit/Angle back to back for the best example of this theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

People appreciate effort no matter how your workrate is. I've yet to see workrate be proven to draw, therefore it isn't proven that the fans appreciate it (other than smarks obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see what the Oxford English Dictionary says about work rate:

 

1. work rate n. (100%)

the amount of energy that is expended in sport or physical exercise.

 

Energy expended ? Sounds like effort to me.

 

As for:

 

I've yet to see workrate be proven to draw, therefore it isn't proven that the fans appreciate it

 

So you're saying fans don't appreciate hard work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

Saying something is a great match and appreciating it are two different things. Trying doesn't always improve workrate (if you have no wrestling ability). So effort doesn't always equal workrate. I already said the fans appreciate hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss

This is turning into a semantic discussion at this point, as we seem to be arguing the same thing from two different ends of the spectrum. Workrate is effort. Effort does not always result in a good match, but he didn't say "good" workrate. Workrate can be good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247

there is some separation of understanding.

 

We might look at the wrestling match like for instance Ricky Steamboat vs Randy Savage, and praise the match for the workrate both men put out. Causal Fans will praise the match, because their actions told a story that was unpredictable up to the finish. the causal fan probably wouldn't say it was good workrate because in reality that is terminology better fitted for our dramatically over critical bunch, but they will like the match if its a good match and workrate often times helps to make a good match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss

Right, so all we're arguing is terminology. That's my point.

 

Besides, how many times have we seen WWE try to rely on a gimmick like Hell in the Cell or a ladder match to increase PPV buys? That's a direct example of them thinking a great match is going to draw money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fanofcoils

Fans can say any Hogan match is a good match. They can say a great workrate match is a great workrate match. It doesn't mean they appreciate it. It is like saying this wrestler is good but I don't care about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loss

And fans are never going to say that. They may have different ideas of what "good" is than other fans, but that doesn't change the fact that fans do get excited during a great match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×